Rating: 
Summary: Definitely Makes You Think
Review: Reading this book was a very validating experience for me. Growing up in Christian dominated America, I often found myself bewildered by many of the commonly accepted Christian stances: its okay to kill people on death row, but not an unborn fetus; euthanasia is okay for a sick dog, but not a sick person; its okay to kill animals for sport and war is okay too, but 'thou shalt not kill'; stopping premarital sex and gay marriage is more important than saving the 24,000 people who die of hunger each day.
Singer presents a clear cut ethical stance and follows it through to all of the tough issues facing man today. He offers no apologies and he doesn't back down from his stance when he reaches controversial conclusions. He also explains where others have gone wrong in trying to address these very tough ethical questions.
Additionally, I really enjoyed Singers writing style. Ethics can definitely be a dry subject but Singer brings it to life with telling examples and narratives. The book is divided into easily digestible sections, and Singer builds a foundation in early chapters which he uses to develop more complex stances about abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, animal rights, the environment, the obligation to assist, etc.
Many of the conclusions in this book are hard to grasp against the current moral backdrop of the Western world, but Singer lays them out in a logical sequence that makes them hard to refute. I am not a Christian, but this book helped to show me just how influenced even I have been by Christian morality. We all need to take a look at our ideas about ethics and realize where they come from. This book may be a difficult read for some, but I think that is all the more reason that this book is a MUST read.
Rating: 
Summary: repulsive
Review: Singer feel that "Killing a defective infant in not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." I compare his way of thinking to Hilter's and what is now going on in Bosnia. ALL people, regardless of abilities or disabilities, should be valued.
Rating:
Summary: Great book!
Review: Singer is definitely a great thinker! From a very small set of sound moral principles (for example, the principle of equal consideration of interests), Singer is able to answer tough and hot questions regarding animals rights, abortion, euthanasia and embryo experimentation, to name a few. This book will make you think and will probably shake your own moral grounds. Buy it because it is worth every penny!
Rating:
Summary: Killing disabled children is O.K.!
Review: Singer states that "Killing a defective infant in not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." As a mother of a disabled child I find this "hate speech" and discriminatory toward the most vulnerable members of our society. Their lives are valuable. This publication is an abomination.
Rating:
Summary: Transcending tradition: the ultimate challenge
Review: Singer's "Practical Ethics" is a masterpiece of ethical reasoning. While many other philosophers clothe their arguments in the jargon of their discipline, Singer's arguments are methodical, rigorous, and easily comprehensible. The result is a book that is an enjoyable read for a lay person; a book that leads us down a path that few of us have travelled so carefully. This rigorous philosophy leads us--through Singer--to challenge the conclusions of countless famous ethicists throughout history. Furthermore, it challenges us to question our innate responses, those emotions ingrained in us by biology or society. If there is any lesson to be learned from "Practical Ethics" it's that it takes *courage* to reason ethically, and to recognise the moral transgressions that we have all committed in ignorance. . . . Although I don't agree with every conclusion of Singer's, his impeccable composition and clear logical process allow me to pinpoint the cause of our few differences. Despite any disagreement, this book is well worth reading for the ethical journey through which it guides you.
Rating:
Summary: Transcending tradition: the ultimate challenge
Review: Singer's "Practical Ethics" is a masterpiece of ethical reasoning. While many other philosophers clothe their arguments in the jargon of their discipline, Singer's arguments are methodical, rigorous, and easily comprehensible. The result is a book that is an enjoyable read for a lay person; a book that leads us down a path that few of us have travelled so carefully. This rigorous philosophy leads us--through Singer--to challenge the conclusions of countless famous ethicists throughout history. Furthermore, it challenges us to question our innate responses, those emotions ingrained in us by biology or society. If there is any lesson to be learned from "Practical Ethics" it's that it takes *courage* to reason ethically, and to recognise the moral transgressions that we have all committed in ignorance. . . . Although I don't agree with every conclusion of Singer's, his impeccable composition and clear logical process allow me to pinpoint the cause of our few differences. Despite any disagreement, this book is well worth reading for the ethical journey through which it guides you.
Rating:
Summary: Impractical nonsense
Review: Singer's book suffers from two major flaws. First, nobody follows his ethical guidelines- not even Singer. People have pointed this out to him, but he just ignores his own hypocrisy. If his ethics were practical, people would adopt them. They contradict human nature, and are therefore impractical. Second, all utilitarian schemes suffer from the lack of any common unit of measurement. Lionel Robbins proved this in his book ("The Nature and Significance of Economic Science" 1933), but some persist in counting imaginary utils. The strength of Singer's book is that it is easy to understand. Unfortunately, many fall prey to this simplistic nonsense. The goods news is that even those who are silly enough to believe Singer's nonsense don't actually act on it.
Rating: 
Summary: dangerous unpractical ethics
Review: The author does in this book an impeccable line of very well reasoned Ethics. The problem resides precisely in the title: "practical". Everyday ethics isn't precisely an exercise of logics, but part of our daily ordinary living and I'm afraid here the author I think fails. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think the mankind has his ethic limits as have his physics and mental limitations and if nobody can to run 100 meters in less than 9 seconds, or jump 4 meters high, or be wise beyond an IC of 180, or prevent the future. There are too many examples of war, crimes, hunger for money, etc. Furthermore, the practical ethics of Peter Singer has an unmistakable taste to English or the Ethics in use between British people: this is evident in the chapter about behaviour toward animals. All these could be acceptable, but the problem is -as in the sports- if you force yourself too much you can damage your muscles -in this case the ethic muscle and the final result become an aberration. We have seen yet crimes done in the name of Ethics perhaps because a good person are not equal to ethical people.
Rating:
Summary: Utilitarianism - A Pathological Exhibit
Review: The first thing I recommend is that before reading "Practical Ethics", make sure you're acquainted with the principles of critical reading as discussed by Mortimer Adler in his brilliant "How To Read A Book". Then turn for example to pages 12 and 13 of "Practical Ethics" and apply the principles of logic as discussed by Adler. Singer claims that the universal aspect of ethics (namely, that we make judgements from a universal, not a self-oriented, point of view) provides a persuasive reason for taking a utilitarian position. OK. Get ready to be strictly logical, and read his argument. Do you agree he has made the case? Here is how it runs ( I summarise ):
1.Suppose the universal position is true.
2.It follows that my own interests as such cannot count for more than the interests of others.
3.Thus I must consider how to maximise the interests of all, equally considered.(2nd sentence, Para 2., p.13.)
4.Thus the universal principle inclines towards a utilitarian position. My question: Neither 1 nor 2 implies 3. Nor do 1 and 2 in combination imply 3. At most 1 and 2 imply that IF "interests ought to be maximised" (the utilitarian doctrine or at least one variation thereof) is true, one must equally consider the interests of all. But Singer neglects to prove that "interests ought to be maximised" here. And nowhere else in his book does he establish it! Therefore Singer's "proof" is guilty of a common logical fallacy: it assumes (via 3) what has to be proved (4) Since his entire argument is based on the utilitarian principle, and he fails to derive this successfully, his project is incomplete at the most critical point - its foundation. I know this sounds incredible, considering the esteem in which Singer is held. (Just read the reviews on the back cover.) But how can people blithely pass over such a sloppy piece of reasoning? There are dozens of other examples of poor thinking in this book. Here's one more that needs discussion. If it's OK to kill babies and the pre-conscious in general because they're just that - not conscious, interest-generating beings - why is it not OK to kill people who are asleep or in comas? Singer replies (pp98,99) that older people asleep or unconscious have once had interests and desires, that and these continue to exist through sleep or inconsciousness. Well, they do and they don't. My ability to drive a car continues to exist while I'm asleep in this sense: if I wake up, I can drive a car. Sleep doesn't extinguish forever my ability to drive a car when I'm awake. But while I'm asleep I can't drive a car. The same rule applies to our having of interests or desires: namely, sleep doesn't extinguish our ability to revive acquired interests when we are awake, but while asleep we are no more "here and now interest or desire - having beings" than we are "beings who here and now can drive a car". The "having of interests" while asleep is not the same thing as the "having of interests" while awake and it is simply disingenuous to imply otherwise. And this point is crucial: Since while asleep I don't "have interests" in the relevant sense - I can't be satisfied by meeting desires or fulfill interests while asleep - it follows I'm in the same position in this respect as an unborn or young baby. Like me, the baby will at some future point acquire interests - only for her it will be for the first time. So why should my dormant interests count, but not the baby's latent interests? Singer tries to get out of this by observing that even when awake sometimes we are not conscious of some desires until we advert to them.(See pp. 98,99.) Nevertheless, he says, those desires "remain a part of us". True, but irrelevant. Remember: the whole point of utilitarianism is to maximise interests. But interests can only be "met" while they are consciously held.[How grateful would we be if someone were to show us that long desired video while we were asleep?] How then, can interests - which because they are not consciously held are not able to be maximised - count in the consequentialist's calculus? Singer might reply "Well, you could make these interests count as maximizable by for example reminding this person of her interests or by waking that person up". Sure you could. But are you obliged to? If not, then so what? If so, why? This could only imply that the goal of utilitarians not only to maximize extant (maximizable) interests, but to increase where possible the number of maximizable interests. But if so, are we not obliged not only to awaken dormant interests but also to allow this newborn baby to live so that it can eventually generate a heap of maximizable interests? We thus return to the original question: if babies, why not the sleeping? The most frightening thing about Singer's book and doctrine is its uncritical reception by otherwise intelligent people. Sure, the man writes smoothly and comes across in print and on air as a genial chap. And for all I know, he may be sincere. Put that aside. These are life or death matters he is pronouncing upon. For heaven's sake, engage your critical faculties. I'm sure it won't take much of a work out before you agree with me that in this nice man's "ethic", mankind has edged one step closer to the abyss. If you're still having trouble spotting the errors in Singer's book, get a hold of "Moral Theory" and other works by David S. Oderberg.
Rating: 
Summary: Going where the arguments take you
Review: This latest edition of Singer's influential book is well written and thorough, and provides a fine introduction to utilitarian ethics. Singer's conclusions are challenging, and provide the tools for some serious revision of our attitudes to some important contemporary issues. For the general reader this book is accessible (if not an easy read) and is a sound model of philosphical analysis of issues that affect us all. In the end, I'm not sure that he has sufficiently supported his radical conclusions, but has nevertheless provided a benchmark for treatment of these issues. What he does demonstrate is that discussion of contraversial topics like abortion, euthenasia and the morality of killing animals should take place in the realm of well constructed arguments. Highly Recommended.
|
