Rating: 
Summary: Killing Fields
Review: It is inconsistent to endorse abortion for seriously defective fetuses and yet refuse to endorse killing infants with serious defects? I have chosen this question as a transition point to discuss what I feel is problematic with Singer altogether. The underlying problem is that Singer is guilty of falling under the spell of a mechanism of power that classifies both the fetus and the infant as the "Other". What effectively happens is that Singer, shrouded in his elaborate Utilitarian explanation, classifies the fetus or infant as an Object rather than a Willing Subject, as explained away by their inability to choose. Once classified as "non person" despite the fetus or infant membership in the species of Homo Sapiens, the problems for Singer tend to dissipate. In Chapter 7 of Practical Ethics, his elaborate explanation, however as much it includes, is problematic by what and whom it tends to exclude. In the section "Life and Death Decisions for Disabled Infants" Singer sets out to cement his notion of "Otherness" through his conclusion on the distinction of rational versus self conscious: "Infants are sentient beings who are neither rational nor selfconscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self conscious must apply here too". Reading Singer, I was impressed by what he included, but was more disturbed by what was missing. Early on in the book he defines a category - the category of 'person'. In order to fully understand where Singer is coming from by the statement quoted above, it is important to come back to his original definition. "This definition makes 'Person close to what Fletcher meant by 'human', except that it selects two crucial characteristics - rationality and self consciousness - as the core of the concept. Quite possibly Fletcher would agree that these two are central, and the others more or less follow from them. In any case, I propose to use 'person', in the sense of a rational and self conscious being, to capture those elements of the popular sense of 'human being' that are not covered by 'member of the species Homo Sapiens."' The references to Singer above are meant to assist me in outlining what I feel is a well meaning but misguided attempt to ease pain. Singer proceeds to a classification that is more damaging to the fetus or infant. Singer's Utilitarian conclusions are part and parcel of an underlying mechanism of power that classifies and categorizes and ultimately silences. Silence is the key here - as these powerless individuals cannot speak on their own behalf, they are further silenced by a philosophical approach gone awry. Michel Foucault, in an interview with L'Express casually reflects on his work and on subject or truth as a form of power. Let us begin by examining power and Foucault's take on it. The questioner reflects on an interview Foucault had with Gille Deleuze in 1972, which touched on the notion of a 'ruling class' and was ultimately asked 'Could you explain this analysis of power to me in greater detail?' Foucault replies: "In the Western industrialized societies, the question "Who exercises power? How? On who?" are certainly the questions that people feel most strongly about. The problem of poverty, which haunted the nineteenth century, is no longer, for our Western societies, of primary importance. On the other hand: Who makes decisions for me? Who is preventing me from doing this and telling to do that? Who is programming my movements and activities? Who is forcing me to live in a particular place when I work in another? How are these decisions on which my life is completely articulated taken? All these questions seem to me to be fundamental ones today. And I don't believe that this question of "who exercises power?" can be resolved today unless that other question "How does it happen?" is resolved at the same time. Of course we have to show who those in charge are, we know we have to turn, let us say, to deputies, ministers, principal private secretaries, etc., etc. But this is not the important issue, for we know perfectly well that even if we reach the point of designating exactly all those people, all those "decision-makers," we will still not really know why and how the decision was made, how it came to be accepted by everybody, and how it is that it hurts a particular category of persons, etc."' Foucault is certainly not a conspiracy theorist. His studies of power and discourse reveal ever increasing and interacting sets of social interchange based on several factors - primarily knowledge. Despite Foucault's focus regarding the "Other" - the insane, the incarcerated, the criminal, etc. his studies well apply to what Singer is trying to do with the fetus and the infant. Back again to Foucault, if my reading of him is accurate, truth is a social construction and truth is a product of social interchange or "Discourse". Forces that have an agenda perpetuate discourse and in turn, the most dominant of the groups determines what is effectively the truth of the day or era. In Madness and Civilization, Foucault examined the birth of the institutional categorization of the insane as the "Other". Once categorized, it was easy to institutionalize "them" and in turn incarcerate the certified in order to turn them back into productive units in society. To be insane was tied in with the notion of being lazy and unproductive, etc. If we tie the mechanism in with Singer, it is clear that Singer is using his position as a distinguished member of Academia to espouse a view that the fetus or infant cannot reply to. Singer then proceeds to entrench this whole mechanism through his exemplary but somehow problematic explanation of Utilitarianism. He then becomes the dominant power of the day and sets the tone for the discourse and truth then becomes: the non-rational are less than human, the non-rational are better off dead. I categorically disagree. If you had a different narrative, it would fail Singer's universality test. If you believe that the fetus has "any intrinsic value" as I do, then there is a problem. In "Death and Utility", J.L.A. Hart brings many good points in his well-documented examination of Singer's work and places in perspective Singer's views on fetal life. "There are I think a number of other doubts that remain to be clarified before Singer's combination of Classical and Preference Utilitarianism can be fully assessed, and some of these affect his discussion of abortion. He has some excellent pages in which he carefully examines and accepts the point frequently made in Conservative arguments against abortion that, so far as being human is concerned, there is no morally significant dividing line between the zygote and later fetus, the newborn child and the adult: all are human if being human means merely being a member of our species. But this, Singer says, settled nothing, since membership of a species is no more morally significant than membership of a particular race. What is significant, he claims, is that the fetus is not a person and so has no claim to life such as he believes Preference Utilitarianism recognizes in a person who desires to live. Fetal life has indeed a value but only the same value as the lives of nonhuman animals at the same level of consciousness and capacity for pleasure and pain." Hart confirms for me what I see, despite Singer's explanation to the contrary - and I see that Singer is trying to lessen the pain all around is his moral void. Caught in the emptiness of his narrative, Singer is compelled to silence yet another "Other" in the form of the silenced fetus. Does it not occur to him that there is an inherent contradiction when he endorses killing the unborn fetus and yet refuses to kill and infant with a serious defect when he has nullified their lives as unlivable in anticipation of their pain. Singer has ranked the possible life as not normal, different from him, dissimilar to us. Who is he to judge what quality of life is possible for the vilified - yes, vilified deformed. If we free ourselves from the trap of seeing them as the Other, than we can channel our energy to making life better for everyone, and less energy on categorizing, silencing and killing the Other. I am certain Foucault would approve and Singer, well, I am not too sure. Miguel Llora
Rating: 
Summary: A giant leap BACKWARD for civilization!
Review: It's appalling for someone to claim to be a Bioethics expert. Bioethics is the discipline dealing with the ethical implications of biological research and applications. I question whether Peter Singer considered the implications of his position on killing newborns with disabilities. This leaves the door open for judgements of a person's worth - starting with innocent defenseless newborns. Mr. Singer needs to experience love, acceptance and tolerance.
Rating: 
Summary: Rebuttal of Jack by Don of Tallahassee
Review: Jack states that it is Prof. Peter Singer's view that: "intelligence is no basis for determining ethical stature, that, for instance, the lives of humans are not worth more than the lives of animals simply because they are more intelligence (sic)..." Not true. Instead Singer evaluates the value of a life based on the being's (including non-human sentient animals) own desire about continuing to live, its rationality and self-awareness over time and between places, and interestingly on its ability to plan and have desires for the future. As such, Singer wites in the Chapter "What's Wrong With Killing?" that: "For preference utilitarians, taking the life of a person will normally be worse than taking the life of some other being, since people are highly future-orientated in their preferences." Singer is controversial even when interpreted correctly, but he is exceptionally consistant, and I've found that - over 25 years from when I was at Monash Uni - in each case where I've initially disagreed with his analysis, eventually I've discovered that it was my own reasoning that was flawed. A final point: one of Singer's basic beliefs is that we are not only responsible for what we do, but for what we could have prevented from happening, e.g. thousands of children suffering and dying weekly in developing nations due to inexpensively preventable causes. Is it that that position is more difficult to take cheap shots at, so it is not much discussed by Singer critics? Or is it that these critics do not want to be distracted by some nagging moral responsibility as they shop for the latest in designer clothes, or a bigger SUV? Tikkun olam Don A.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Read
Review: Most of the other reviewers seem to give this book a low ranking based solely on their personal feelings. While I do not agree with all of Mr. Singer's conclusions, his arguments are very thought-provoking as well as well argued. The book is easy-to-follow, even for non-academics. It seems the media and many people have a knee-jerk reaction and are taking quotes completely out of context (see above reviews); they seem to be saying "you're wrong" without ever offering logical argumentation as to the fallacy of the authors point. Very good book
Rating:
Summary: great material
Review: one of the best books I've read in a while! the arguments are well stated and it's easy to read and understand. the appendix in the book deals with a lot of prejudices people have (which can be seen in previous reviews).
Rating:
Summary: Courageous, largely implausible
Review: Peter Singer belongs to the rare breed of fearless thinkers who do not flinch and go wherever the argument takes them, to the very limit. People who are uncomfortable with this mode of discourse should stick to heart-warming tracts preaching self-improvement and universal love. I have nothing against universal love, I simply prefer to deal with doctrines that yield themselves to rational analysis. When the lesser critics who revile Singer yell that infanticide is horrible, I tend to agree, but I still want to ask, why?
Somehow nobody - not just the lesser critics - seems to have noticed that Singer builds the most compelling case against racism and every other hue of bigotry that could be found almost anywhere, provided one accepts his utilitarian premises. This alone deserves our gratitude. If this line of argument moves him to include animals into the ethical space, so be it. I think that Animal Liberation is Singer's best book, precisely because its scope is limited to bigotry, whether within the species or outside it.
Unfortunately, the liability of this logical approach is that the logician takes himself too seriously. I once came across a bumper sticker that said "Do not believe everything you think". Singer does, and so ends up with some conclusions that are simply beyond the common sense.
It could be worse, and somitimes is. Singer often writes as if economics never existed, particularly when he deals with the redistribution of wealth. Economics may not be as watertight as physics, but it is certainly more grounded in reality than anybody's ethical system, Singer's being no exception. Anybody who lived under communism or worked for the US Civil Service could attest to it, and I did both.
Coming back to the problem of infanticide: people who would rather brand Singer a Nazi than consider his argument on its merit know very little history. Infanticide as a regular form of birth control was widely practiced in the very classical world that gave us philosophy, ethics, and the idea of the rule of law. We do not have to approve of it to be able to discuss it.
What I find particularly offensive is when people, unable to slug it intellectually, recourse to ad hominem devices, like dragging Singer's sick mother into the discussion. Peter Singer is selling us a doctrine, not a personal example. Another Peter managed to betray his revered teacher, thrice, and still attained to sainthood in the end.
All in all, I found reading this book immensely rewarding, if in the end still unsatisfactory. Perhaps utilitarianism is a lot like democracy: pretty bad until you consider all the alternatives.
Rating:
Summary: Intelligent and very well written
Review: Peter Singer's book is a thoughtful contribution to the study of how, now that belief in God is far from universal, we can derive and use a system of ethics that does not presume the existence of any kind of God. Now that we know beyond reasonable doubt that we are here because of a combination of chance and the actions of our selfish genes, and that there is no external meaning to life, a search for an ethical system that does not depend on such external deities is of great importance. If this is to make sense, it is necessary to demolish the notion that in a purely mechanistic universe there can be no right and wrong. This is what Singer sets out to do, and to a large extent he succeeds. Singer uses rigour and logic to build a way of thinking about ethical decisions, and the uses that system to confront day-to-day ethical problems. His conclusions are often surprising. However, this book may confuse those who do not understand evolution. Consider a previous reviewer's comments: "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." This is nonsense. Evolution is not about anything; it is simply what replicators do when given a chance to replicate. Evolution does not compel individuals to act selfishly. This is simply a misunderstanding of evolution. Of course, evolution is outside the scope of a book about ethics: I would recommend Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" to anyone who still believes that evolution in any way excuses selfish behaviour. The most interesting thing about all this is the way that Singer seems to elicit extreme and irrational responses to his fairly mild and well-argued statments. There are several examples of this in the reviews on this page. I suspect that the real reason for these responses is that Singer's logic challenges people's most treasured beliefs. Read this book and make up your own mind.
Rating:
Summary: A Very Good Collection of Essays
Review: Peter Singer's views are very controversial--his recent appointment at Princeton was vigorously protested by various groups--but they certainly make for an interesting read. He espouses utilitarianism, a branch of ethics that measures "rightness" or "wrongness" on an action's effect on the majority of people (and animals). As a result, there is very little voice given in defense of certain rights that many of us--especially us Americans--consider to be fundamental (except, of course, to refute them). The individual is of little importance in his scheme of ethics, and his brand of utilitarianism, based on a rigorous logic, leads to some pretty scary destinations. For instance, in his argument in favor of animal rights, Singer argues that a) speciesism is no different from racism, that our perception of a difference is no less illogical and unethical than our one-time perception of an ethical difference between, say, men and women, or blacks and whites; b) that intelligence is no basis for dermining ethical stature, that, for instance, the lives of humans are not worth more than the lives of animals simply because they are more intelligence (if intelligence were a standard of judgment, he points out, we could perform medical experiments on the mentally retarded with moral impunity); c) that we need to measure the *interests* of the parties involved, and that, ultimately, all things being equal, an animal has as much interest in living as a human. Therefore, all things being equal, medical experimentation on animals is immoral. If, however, sacrificing the lives of, say 20 animals will save millions of human lives, then all things are not equal, and the interests of millions of people outweighs the interests of 20 animals. The horrifying extention of this principle, though, is that the interests of 20 people outweighs the interests of one, and that this philosophy will give the green light to all sorts of very profound civil rights abuses. The arguments aren't impenetrable, but singer is very careful in setting them up, and very good at getting the reader to agree with him before the reader really knows what he is agreeing with. His arguments are strong, logical, and convincing (which isn't to say I agree with all of them). He makes an interesting, very strong case for the ethical necessity of vegetarianism (simply: it is wrong to kill as a matter of tase; we don't need to eat meat, and therefore kill to do so only as a matter of taste; therefore it is wrong to eat meat). He also argues in favor of abortion & infancticide. This is an excellent book for lay people interested in secular ethical reasoning.
Rating:
Summary: A book Useful for Human Rights Academicians also!
Review: Peter Singer's work "Practical Ethics" is very useful for those interested in Civil Rights or Human Rights. Chapters on 'Equality', 'Whats wrong with killing?', 'Environment' and 'Why act morally' should not be missed by anyone.
Rating:
Summary: A dark book
Review: Peter Singer, the contraversial professor in Princeton, presents his moral theory again, but this time, he focuses on bioethical issues, in addition to issues regarding the treatment of animals. His ideas are very dark, and what's scarier is that they make logical sense.
|
