Writings on an Ethical Life

Rating:
Summary: A True Visionary
Review: Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live in the past when human slaves existed? Do you ever question whether you would have the knowledge or insight to realize that you were committing a moral injustice? Well, Professor Singer (he was my professor at Princeton University) is simply a man who has such a vision into the future and is able to understand the cruelties of this world and can explain why they are unjustifiable, regardless of popular opinion.

I don't dare to say that his ideas are popular; in fact, 50 mentally handicapped individuals chained themselves to the front gate of Princeton's campus in protest of his appointment. He is a man who argues for the legalization of infanticide, yet has the ability to understand that every American should send a portion of each paycheck to help ease the suffering of starvation in third world countries.

I recommend this book because I think Peter Singer can show us how to put an end to the "slave institutions" that we continue to use in this world. I guarantee you one thing; if you bring an open mind to this book, Peter Singer will change your outlook on life. Period.

Rating:
Summary: Misunderstanding Singer
Review: I've read many essays from Singer's books, and I can say that many of the reviewers here, I suspect not being formally trained in philosophy, have missed his points in some degree, which leads to their proposed "problems" singer has. First, if let me say this. If Singer has all of the problems that some say he has with the validity of his arguments, he would never have made it to any college, much less Princeton. What I glean from the objections to his arguments is that the readers are not fully understanding his positions, much less the technical but subtle and sound logic in them.

One writer writes that "Are we to believe that animals have a since of I or me" and "Does this mean that when an animal hurts, kills or steals from another that she should be charged with assault, murder or theft?" Of course not. Singer would never make such an outlandish assertion nor would even a first year grad student in philosophy. Another reader objects to infanticide, but the argument Singer gives-one on personhood-is sound and valid. It draws its ideas from both Judith Jarvis Thompson's essay and Michael Tooley's essay on that subject, which are both still preeminent. Singer does have some nice explanations to professional arguments on the other side too that neither Thompson nor Tooley address (because they are writing their own arguments). One of my favorite quotes on personhood and infanticide, for example, pithy, but to the point, is this: "Dropping an egg into boiling water is not the same as dropping a live chicken into boiling water" and this "The fact that Price Charles will be the king of England does not mean that he is now the King of England." In other words, infants are not the same as thinking and reasoning beings, and thinking, reasoning, self aware beings are the only beings we ascribe "personhood" to, and persons are the only "things" that get to claim an ethical right to life. If this weren't true, and Singer makes this point, then everything that lives could be said to claim a right to life. This sound reasoning is not as easily dismissed as some think. (And don't hit me on those two simple examples. Read the essays and do your own research.)

Last, one reader objects because "if one were to take seriously his premise that we ought to do whatever we can in our power to help those in dire need, no one could ethically spend a dime on anything other than "necessities" (which also raises a question about what constitutes a "necessity" versus a "luxury").

First, what he means is that if people are in dire need of no fault of their own, then we should and are morally bound to help them. If that means buying nothing more than necessities, then our moral obligations override luxuries. Think of it this way. Your mother, and I use "mother" here because that brings it right home, has cancer and needs an operation. The only way she can afford it is for you to pay for it. However, you want that new Humvee. Are you morally obligated to pay for your mother's operation rather than buy the Humvee? Singer thinks so. And the distinction between what a luxury 'is' means nothing more than that.

For those reading reviews, or anything for that mattter, remeber to always look for examples when a person says X is bad. Look for what comes after that assertion. Look for examples and an explanation of WHY it is bad, and then see if the reasons add up to the objections.

I hope I have provided at least some good examples of why I think many misunderstand Singer and have provided you with at least two essays (Thompson and Tooley) for further reading on the subject of abortion and infanticide.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting and Entertaining but Ultimately Unconvincing
Review: It's a sorry commentary on academia that a scholar is no longer judged on the soundness of their thought, but rather on the controversy of their ideas. Singer certainly is austentacious but this should not be taken to mean he is anything but.

Many have judged him negatively because of where he ends up. My negative judgement is based on how he gets there. Basically, Singer argues from a lot of 'should's and 'wouldn't it be great if's, which is hard to avoid in the field of applied ethics. He also leaves much inonsistency when he DOES reason. For instance, I was annoyed at his comparison of the animal liberation movement to the womens and black liberation movements. Of course, if the comparison is made, we need to fully make it. What Singer fails to realize is that when rights are given (Singer stubbornly refuses to admit that conference of rights and social liberation are the same thing!?), corresponding responsabilities always come with them. So if we treat animals as equal beings in privilege, we must hold them to equal responsabilities. Does this mean that when an animal hurts, kills or steals from another that she should be charged with assult, murder or theft? The appropriate reply is 'No.' Why? Because animals don't seem to have the forethought to understand or comply with the social contract. It is THIS lack of comprehension that makes the animal liberation movement, although it would be nice, hardly possible. Animals don't appear as having the ability to join in a civil society.

Singers book, however, is good to read as an ethical kick in the pants. It WILL make you uncomfortable. I, a whole-hog (get it?) omnivore found myself squirming during some chapters depicting animal slaughter and lab tests. You may just as easily find yourself squirm at the pontification on baby M. (born with a non-functioning brain and kept alive for two years). Whatever you do, MAKE SURE you understand Singer's arguments before you criticize. Many negative reviewers below do not understand his euthenasia stance; it's an easy one to misunderstand.

All in all, this book is an adequate glimpse into an over-quoted and under-read mind. The book is quite repetitive, but as it consists of short essays, the reader can skip around when (not if) she gets bored. The two stars are for tenacity and originality- not consistency or brilliance. In the end, Singer fails in both of those.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating, frustrating, and thought-provoking
Review: Peter Singer is a master of taking an idea to its logical conclusion, and sometimes farther. He is controversial because he is willing to examine some of our most basic and cherished beliefs, and find the contradictions in the values which inform our everyday lives. While it is not comfortable to be so challenged, reading Singer with as open a mind as possible will help you clarify your own ethics, whether you subscribe to his or not.

Singer is not a monster, and though some of his ideas are disturbingly cold and mechanical, the majority of his ideas, and his philosophy as a whole, are deeply humane. To understand this, you must read him. Not agree with him, but read him.

How dull our lives would be if we were only exposed to comfortable ideas which reinforced our own beliefs. My beliefs have become clearer and stronger because of Singer's challenges, and I am grateful to his writings for helping me think less hypocritically about the world. I've still got leather shoes, and I still value a newborn human more than a newborn rodent, but I am also much more aware of how I spend my money and about what the choices I make in life really mean. This book is a well-edited survey of Singer's thoughts and ideas, his challenges and critiques, his justifications and juxtapositions, his philosophies.

Rating:
Summary: Pete Singer's "philosophy" a joke
Review: The people that have dissed Singer here have distorted his message by oversimplification, the kind that of thing you would expect people from those who have not read him. Singer doesn't want to get rid of retarded people, as one reviewer suggests. Singer bases some of his arguments on the distinction between person-status and mere species memebership, and Singer would definitely rate retarded people as persons.

Anyways, Singer is definitely right that the last edifice of pre-Darwinian (or pre-Copernican) thought is the idea of humnan life as intrinsically more estimable than other life, no ifs ands or buts. Singer explores the implications of this fairly, admitting that he doesn't have all the answers (no dogma here) but offering well-thought-out new proposals for action given the world view we'll have to adopt.