Rating: 
Summary: Logical, readable, but incorrect
Review: Various other well-reviewed reviewers have covered this book's general qualities. I will try to clip some dangling threads. Singer's book is eminently readable, and well-reasoned. I highly recommend it for those who wonder, "What is ethics?" and "Why be ethical?" and for those who reject religious dogmatism in favor of defensible positions on some of the most contentious issues out there: abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, omnivorism, the refugee problem, protection of the environment, and so on. Singer hasn't dodged anything.The flaws in his argument seem to reside in his basic framework: an absolute hierarchy of interests (preferences, desires). Singer bases this book on the notion that equal desires should be considered equally...thus skirting the notion that desires have weight, and the lesser desires of, say, a thousand people can outweigh the greater desire of one person. Singer does not shy from controversy - see the last section of the book - so his absolutist myopia seems to be a genuine flaw, rather than an attempt to mollify the masses by permanently putting (for example) the right to remain alive above the right to live free of torture. Practical Ethics attacks the issues directly and generally unflinchingly, and I highly recommend it. Singer's rationality is a breath of fresh air for those who are frustrated with the dogmatic, uninformed or otherwise predirected arguments rampant in philosopy. Still, he remains an absolutist, and arrives at conclusions that are generally useful but still dodge the development of an ethical calculus (arguably the holy grail of ethics) that can resolve the questions: "Is it right (ethical) to take the life of a tyrant who holds a thousand people captive and is torturing them within an inch of their lives? If so, is it right if the tyrant is only torturing ten people? How about three? How about two?" To cross this threshold requires considerable intestinal fortitude...I hope that Singer has it, and produces a third edition demonstrating it.
Rating: 
Summary: Sick. Very sick.
Review: Voltaire once said of his adversary Rousseau, "I disagree with what he says but I will defend to the death his right to say it." That said, Peter Singer is one sick fellow. It is not so much that he has no feelings (quite the contrary, he seems to be a hedonist), but it is that he assumes that there is (or could be) an authority to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn't. This is to say: society needs a rational organizer and arbiter to be sovereign over all human action. Of course, Singer would argue, reatrded babies would be eliminated by this societal director, but, who is to say the director will limit his selection to retarded babies? Why not ugly babies? Or ugly adults? Or Jewish adults? Now, we see where Singer's perverted "ethics" can lead. At any rate, the worst (in the sense of most evil) would necessarily get on top. I urge everyone to read F.A. Hayek's masterpiece, "The Road to Serfdom" for the best and most thorough discussion of these issues.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent
Review: You can't really be human unless you explore the rights and wrongs of our choices. I liked this book almost as much as I liked "To Be or Not to Be: Reflections on Bioethical Choices" by Donald Paone. Those are two very good books.
| 
