Practical Ethics

Rating:
Summary: It all sounds very reasonable . . . and yet . . .
Review: A lot of people in the popular press - and, indeed, in this forum - have called Peter Singer "evil" and compared him to, among other things, the Nazis. This is the wrong response. Although I certainly don't subscribe to an absolute speech-act distinction, "evil" really seems like the wrong word for careful, academic arguments found in books that - let's face it - hardly anyone is ever going to read. Even if we disagree with the conclusions, those arguments need to be made to see if they work, and, if they don't, why they don't - like scientific hypotheses, most of which are disproved. That's what philosophers do. Most of the more rabid responses have taken a very simple form: (1) Singer says infanticide is not always wrong; (2) But infanticide is always wrong; (3) Therefore, Singer is wrong when he says that infanticide is not always wrong. A classical fallacy, substituting one's position for an argument when it is one's position, in fact, that is under discussion.

Singer's arguments certainly follow the general lines of philosophic decorum. His approach isn't terribly original, and he would probably be the first to admit that. In _Practical Ethics_, Singer eschews the quest for a solution to the is-ought problem, and pictures ethics as born out of the undefended desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain - the ethical project, or at least the utilitarian version of it, being the attempt to universalize such a desire. In this respect, Singer simply follows the tracks of Mill and (particularly) Bertrand Russell (see his _Human Society in Ethics and Politics_).

Singer's particular contribution is to apply this to problems with a fearless consistency - particularly to those problems where the status of the subjects in question; that is, the ethics of our treatment of animals, the unborn, the newly born, and the old and infirm. His ideas about animals are, to my mind, quite correct, and his "fudge" on medical testing is also correct, and avoids the rhetorical minefield of arguing about animal "rights." (I'll say more about this when I get around to reviewing _Animal Liberation_.)

Singer's views on infanticide have attracted the most attention. In an earlier edition of this work, Singer states with very little trepidation that an infant is not conscious until a month or two after birth. He has amended this view somewhat in the newer edition, but the results are more or less the same. (It should be noted that the views of pre-birth sentience and mental activity are strictly those advanced by pro-choicers; that there might be controversy on this point has evaded his notice.) The consequences of this view follow more or less predictably.

Rather than address the whole of Singer's argument on this point, I would like to take notice of his attitude about it. When an argument leads you to a place that seems, at the very least, not the keenest place in the world to be, it should _at least_ provide an opportunity for rethinking the argument. But Singer takes no such opportunity. Maybe he is right, after all. (Are there times when death is a kindness? I forebear to say "never," and history seems to be on my side.) But such an odd conclusion should at _least_ prompt the question, "Is there something wrong with my theory?"

It is this distance that Singer assumes from conventional moral intuitions that ultimately fragments his moral vision. On the subject of the indirect consequences of permitting infanticide under more broad circumstances than at present - the idea that it might lessen our hold on the value of human life generally - Singer is rather blase - "the Eskimos didn't have a problem with it." But we are not Eskimos, we are modern Westerners, the inheritors (largely) of Christianity, and a fierce and rather unreasonable love of children is an inseperable part of the moral equipment we've inherited. But there's something atomistic in Singer's world-view that's not very good at looking at that aspect of us - it's too eager to remove the human from his or her context into the realm of rational decision-making.

Ethics should be about more than just casuistry; ethics should present a vision of the good life. Singer's utilitarianism isn't equipped to rise from the former into the latter. That being said, casuistry is quite important, and Singer, in this book, reflects quite profitably on any number of questions. An important book.

Rating:
Summary: Missing the point
Review: A lot of people miss the point of this book and think that Singer wants to kill mentally defective infants... That's not his point at all. Rather, he is providing a sound argument that shows why it is more morally wrong to kill an intelligent non-human (like a chimpanzee for example), than to kill a mentally defective infant. If anything, Singer wants more rights for animals, not less rights for humans. This book is worth the read because it really makes you think about what makes you a human and what makes you a person. All of Singer's arguments are valid and they have the potential to make you reconsider some of your own deep-seated beliefs.

Rating:
Summary: Practically Nonsense
Review: Any person claiming that Singer has provided ANSWERS has obviously not finished the book!

He unequivocally states in the last chapter (Why Act Morally?) that people who do not choose to act so - for whatever reason - are not wrong, irrational nor in error. While Singer harshly ridicules people who think differently from him, he vindicates them absolutely from being "wrong". By comparing "acting morally" to collecting stamps, he freely admits that the previous chapters were merely opinions, and not answers.

In other words, since life is meaningless and purposeless (his words, not mine) ethics are merely one more way that a person can choose to spend their life time. It is not a better way, just one more way. He thereby proves that all of his arguments are based not on logic but emotion and whimsy. This is, I would argue, the only accurate conclusion he draws from his most basic premises.

The rest of the book is poorly argued, as it must be given his basic philosophical premise. I quote:

"Life began, as the best available theories tell us, in a chance combination of molecules; it then evolved through chance mutations and natural selection. All this just happened; it did not happen for any overall purpose." (From Why Act Morally?)

This single statement precludes Singer from actually answering any "ethical" question, as it absolutely precludes there being such a thing as ethics, morality, or right and wrong!

For example, take the problem of what is versus what ought to be. Any system of ethics attempts to answer that basic question. Singer denies (as do all except the most honest of scientists) that "what is" is "right". By his own definition, "what is" just is - it is all there is! There is no (nor can there be) a "right". There is what worked to produce the species which can ponder such a question, and that is all. Right and wrong didn't enter into the equation. In a purely mechanistic universe there can be no right or wrong - only what we prefer.

Here is where Singer's utilitarianism comes in: We prefer pleasure to pain, so we will call pleasure good and pain evil - right and wrong. We should then do everything we can to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This is nonsense for two reasons: 1) Evolution is not about pleasure, it is about avoiding the pain of being another's dinner, and the two are not the same at all. 2) Evolution is not about perfecting the species, it is about creating new species, and this is individualism at its most primal level. The individual should (and normally will) do what helps it and its offspring survive and produce more offspring - regardless of any system of ethics.

Singer is a celebrated advocate of animal rights. If his premises are correct, then to ask me to put other species ahead of my own is ridiculous, unless one can provide evidence that it actually advances the propagation of my genes. To the contrary, nothing makes more sense than to subjugate other species to my use. He bemoans the conditions of a cow's existence, but we will see in a paragraph that it makes no difference.

Further, his premises make it clear that slavery of one race to another, or even just another sub-population is "good" from an evolutionary point of view. If I can benefit from your forced labor to help my genes propagate (while minimizing your own propagation) that is definitely what I should do. But what of the pain that I cause to the slave or the cow I raise for food?

According to Singer's own philosophical premise, as clearly enunciated in the final chapter of the book, it is clear that all life is meaningless. It necessarily follows that the manner in which they live it is meaningless; the length of the life is meaningless; the means of death is meaningless. The pain of torture or cancer matters only to the individual, and once dead the pain is meaningless. There is - and can be - no moral difference between Hitler and your pacifist neighbor, no matter how kindly he attempts to live his life.

When the dust settles, we find that Singer doesn't even adhere to the ethics he puts forward in this book. He states that it would be much more ethical to send money to starving, hurting people than to spend it on a human being unlikely to benefit from the expenditure. In fact, he proposes that governments tax us 10% of our incomes to do just that!

However, when faced with his own mother's incapacitation, he seems to feel that the many dollars he spends on keeping her alive and well are more important than all of those hungry, hurting people. He proves for us that his opinions are merely flights of an immensely callous and jaded imagination which prove their flimsiness when measured against the realities of human life.

I can sum up my review of this work with the following:

I bought the book because I was appalled at some of the statements attributed to Peter Singer from the book.

As I read the book, I was amused by the paucity of reason in his arguments. If they weren't so irrational, they could actually be funny in a dark sort of way.

Then, I was abject at the prospect of people actually listening to somebody as irrational as this and considering that his opinions are worth serious debate. He is, after all, a professor at Princeton.

When I finished, I was applauding the imminent victory of reason. If this book represents some of the best arguments that a mechanistic philosophy can bring to bear on day-to-day life and morality, then the war is all but won! The more publicity this sort of irrational nonsense receives, the sooner it will be banished from the marketplace of ideas.

It is practically nonsense. It is practically worthless. The war upon reason is practically over.

Rating:
Summary: Cui bono?
Review: Anyone interested in utilitarianism, the doctrine of ethics undergirding Peter Singer's work, should really first read the works of that school's founders, Victorian men like Bentham and Mill. Utilitarianism is actually quite noble in its intentions--"The greatest good for the greatest number." The trouble comes in the application. Whose definition of the good? And what (moral) limits may be imposed on its maximization? Such questions cannot be answered strictly within utilitarianism. When you're a 19th century English gentleman, your conception of the good will be largely that of traditional Western liberal and classical thought. Fast forward to Peter Singer, though, and you see what happens when you define the good without respect for natural law or the social contract.

I have never understood why organizations opposed to cruelty to animals (itself a worthy end) are called "humane" societies. It is not necessarily the case that a person who loves animals so abounds in the milk of human kindness that his compassion flows beyond the limits of his own species. There are some such people; there are also others whose love of animals combines nicely with misanthropy. I wouldn't place Singer in the second category, but be careful you don't assume he must be in the first.

Actually, the irony is Singer himself doesn't even live out his utilitarianism as carried to its logical conclusion. It's not his fault; it's a problem with the less coherent parts of his philosophy. Snake oil is still snake oil, even when it's made from soy.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent purchase for the amateur philosopher!
Review: Before purchasing this, keep in mind that it was written in a textbook format.

That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. My only recommendation might be to purchase his book, "Writings on an Ethical Life" instead. His views have changed slightly over time, especially since much of his work was published in the early 1970's. "Writings..." better reflects his current ethical beliefs and is probably more interesting to read than "Practical Ethics."

However, I found his final chapter in "Practical Ethics" to be incredibly interesting and it wasn't duplicated in his recent book....so the choice is up to you. If you have to choose one, purchase "Writings..." - if you can get both - consider it.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent purchase for the amateur philosopher!
Review: Before purchasing this, keep in mind that it was written in a textbook format.

That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. My only recommendation might be to purchase his book, "Writings on an Ethical Life" instead. His views have changed slightly over time, especially since much of his work was published in the early 1970's. "Writings..." better reflects his current ethical beliefs and is probably more interesting to read than "Practical Ethics."

However, I found his final chapter in "Practical Ethics" to be incredibly interesting and it wasn't duplicated in his recent book....so the choice is up to you. If you have to choose one, purchase "Writings..." - if you can get both - consider it.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I had gone through this for our ethics course and it is a real treat

Rating:
Summary: A book in the best tradition of open intellectual debate.
Review: I haven't actually read Singer's book but from the other reviews I feel as qualified to comment on it as the other reviewers. Anyone who thinks we aren't already making judgments on the values of people's lives every day -- in courtrooms, HMOs and insurance firms -- has his or her head deeply submerged in the bayou. If Singer's book contributes to the construction of a clear, intelligible debate about how these values ought to be determined, it is worth reading.

Unfortunately I can't afford it...

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining
Review: I must say that Singer puts up a convincing arguemuent. However, I did notice some contradictions that I'm itching to point out (that is just my personality) but I have to keep it under one thousand words. I say read it anyway and try to spot them. It may require some note taking. In an ideal world I would put this up there with the Bible and such, but I'm afraid not everyone teaches at Princeton. The beliefs are great in hypothetical situations but when life is involved into the equation, they lose their credibility. If people were robots and we had the qualities of being unbiased and rational this would be perfect but as we all know people are irrational, biased, and unpredictable. The one thing that I did not like was how he portrayed life as black and white. It is very gray indeed.

Rating:
Summary: Practical Ethics..for living in an ivory tower
Review: It is an interesting read. He does make some valid points. However, the section on global aid is laughably oversimplified. In short, Singer spends several hundred pages alternating between quixotic ideals and "Bono Economics"