Peter Singer
Peter Singer (full name Peter Albert David Singer) is an Australian philosopher and teacher. He is currently a professor at Princeton University in the USA. He works in practical ethics, and treats ethical issues from a utilitarian (specifically preference utilitarian) perspective.
Singer served as chair of philosophy at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996 Singer ran as a Green candidate for the Australian Senate but failed to be elected. In 1999 he was appointed Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics of Princeton University's Center for Human Values, and relocated to the United States.
His book Animal Liberation (originally published in 1975, second edition 1990) was a major formative influence on the modern animal rights movement. (Although he does not support animal rights himself, he derives many of the same conclusions from his utilitarian animal liberation philosophy). In this work he argues against "speciesism": the discrimination against certain beings based only on their belonging to a certain (almost always non-human) species. He holds the interests of all beings which are capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and concludes that the use of animals for food is unjustifiable because it creates unnecessary suffering. He therefore considers veganism the only ethically justifiable diet. He also condemns most vivisection, though he believes a few animal experiments may be acceptable if the benefit (in terms of improved medical treatment, etc.) outweighs the harm done to the animals used.
His most comprehensive work, Practical Ethics (1979, second edition 1993), analyses in detail why and how beings' interests should be weighed. He states that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties, and not according to its belonging to some abstract group.
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.
Singer's position has been vigorously attacked by many different groups concerned with what they see as an attack upon human dignity, from advocates for disabled people to religious groups, including right-to-life supporters.
Critics argue that Singer is in no position to judge the quality of life of disabled people. In Germany, his position has been compared to the Nazi practice of murdering "unworthy life", and his lectures have been repeatedly disrupted. Some claim that Singer's utilitarian ideas lead to eugenics --though often this charge originates in an understanding of utilitarianism that has little to do with the views of Singer or other utilitarian writers, such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick and R. M. Hare. Singer's fundamental principles are shared by these philosophers, but his conclusions based on these principles in controversial areas such as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and his refusal to hide his conclusions behind euphemisms, may help explain why his works have attracted particular attention.
Proponents of other ethical systems like deontology or virtue ethics have found in Singer's work ammunition against utilitarism and claim that his conclusions show by themselves that consequentialism leads to eugenism, infanticide, or even justification of torture in certain circumstances.
Singer has replied that many people judge him based on secondhand summaries and short quotations taken out of context, not his books or articles. (To make his writings more accessible, Singer has collated the most important into a single book, Writings on an Ethical Life.) For example, when people hear that Singer thinks that a dog has the same moral importance as a new born baby, they might interpret the statement as dehumanising. It is contextually important that Singer values the lives of the dog and the baby considerably, consistently with his strict vegetarianism.
Singer experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. Singer's mother had Alzheimer's disease, which rendered her, in Singer's system, a "nonperson". He did not euthanise her, commenting that it was "different" in the case of someone he knew and loved. "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult." Singer continues to hold that euthanasia can be justified in certain cases. This has led to accusations of hypocrisy. Yet, most critics forget to mention that Singer's mother could not consent to euthanasia, and therefore killing her would have been a case of non-voluntary euthanasia, which Singer distinguishes from voluntary ones. In Practical Ethics Singer groups voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia under different headings and gives them different philosophical treatment. Neither he nor his supporters differentiate between his mother's inability to consent and the inability to consent of a severely disabled infant, but it should be noted that Singer has never argued that a non-person who is not suffering has to be euthanised- only that it would be morally acceptable to euthanise..
In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, one of Singer's most well known philosophical essays, he states that the injustice of some people living in abundance while others starve is morally indefensible. Singer argues that anyone able to help the poor should donate at least 10% of their income to aid poverty and similar efforts. Singer reasons that, when one is already living comfortably, a further purchase to increase comfort will lack the same moral importance as saving another person's life. Singer himself donates 20% of his salary to Oxfam and UNICEF.
In a 2001 book review, Singer stated that humans and animals can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships. Bestiality should remain illegal if it involves cruelty, but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror, writes Singer, because "we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes." Thus, Singer concludes, sex between humans and non-humans, while abnormal, "ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."
These views themselves are regarded as criminal in a few legal systems; and persons acting on such views would be arrested in a number of nations, even though there are also places where bestiality is not explicitly criminalised. Some people regard Singer's views as immoral and supportive of animal abuse. Most Jewish, Christian and Muslim fundamentalist groups view such actions as one of the most heinous offenses possible. Singer himself, though, does not consider that his views on this subject are important enough to merit so much attention.
See also: Vegetarianism, Utilitarianism, Utilitarian Bioethics, Henry Spira, R. M. Hare
His other publications include:
Animal liberation
Practical ethics
Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide
Criticism
World poverty
Views on inter-species sexual relationships
Publications
References
External Links
Links to anti-Singer sites