Customer Reviews

How Are We to Live: Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest (Opus)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Singer tackles "the big one," the meaning of life, in this book, and damned if he doesn't figure it out. In my opinion. (Your mileage may vary.) His approach is take you through a few thousand years of philosophy/economics/political science to get to the answer that a life spent trying to help others and reduce suffering is really the most moral, and most fulfilling one. It's a fascinating, and important, book. OK. I do have one small quibble. (Forgive me, I'm a quibbler.) Singer, correctly, I think, sees some uses of psychotherapy as self-indulgent and an attempt to rationalize away the moral emptiness that comes from leading a materialistically oriented life. However, I think he underestimates the need for people to come to terms with the forces that create a self that can't keep its "owner" from suffering. You have to be able to help yourself as well as others. The process of individuation, of becoming your own creative person, is important in human happiness. It's not as moral as purely devoting yourself to others, but I think there is room for both. I don't think Singer would disagree (maybe he would?). That, I think minor, quibble aside, I think the book is a really cool exploration of a really important question that we all ask ourselves, but that few (non-religious types) have spent enough time thinking about. I, for one, am glad that Peter Singer is around and thinking about it.

I recently assigned this book for my Introduction to Ethics course. The early chapters reply to the argument that we are by nature selfish. Singer does an excellent job arguing that evolutionary theory demonstrates no such thing, while still leaving room for true ethical decision making (i.e. evolution also does not determine that we be ethical). His discussion of the prisoners dilemma is also quite clear and interesting. In later chapters he tries to convince his audience that they will be happier if they lead lives committed to ethics. The argument here is not as clear or as persuasive and my students began to find him annoying (especially his repeated use of vegetarians/animal rights activists as happy without any accompaning defense of the animal rights position). All in all though, it is quite wonderful that a philosopher has written a book that is so accessible for lay audiences.

Singer compellingly shows how our misunderstanding of self-interest has led us to the brink of social and ecological disaster. He unmasks the errors that have led us down this path. Best of all, he offers an alternative -- a new understanding of self-interest, one that embraces both altruism and ethical integrity. What a humane and reasonable book!

To be sure, the book is not perfect. The chapter on Japan is dated, and the passages on animal rights and feminism are too brief to be more than "thought-starters." More importantly, Singer is sometimes less than balanced in his criticisms of other thinkers (e.g., Socrates, Kant, Jesus, Franklin).

But the virtues of the book, including it's readability, far outweigh it's limitations. Students in my Moral Issues course found the book engaging and illuminating.

Peter Singer has deliverd a masterpiece. He mangages to impart great amounts of information in a clear, readable style. This is not just a book for those interested in philosophy, but for anyone who has ever asked "What does my life's work mean anyways?" A convincing argument for the ethical life.

An extremely important and relevant work from a highly intelligent,committed and ethical individual.Singer's clear and readable expounding of an enlightening yet surprisingly simple ethical outlook definitely has the potential to change, for the better, a readers approach both to their own life and to their relationships to others, both human and non-human.An absolute gem!

This may be the best book of moral philosophy ever written for a general audience. Singer covers a large number of topics, from feminist ethics to the prisoner's dilemma, in the course of presenting a graceful and compelling argument for the moral life

Unlike some of Peter Singer's other books, "How are we to live" is not a comprehensive opus on ethics, the history of ethics, or ethical systems. It is a book about the ethical dilemmas faced by modern self-interested Western society, and it is intended for a general audience rather than an academic one. I'm not a student or scholar of philosophy or ethics, yet I had no trouble understanding the content of this book, as such, I think it fulfils the author's aim of being accessible to lay readers.

Early in the book, Singer presents some fascinating historical analysis of tends related to individual greed in the 1980s leading into the 1990s. It is worth reading for the first few chapters alone, where this analysis is presented.

This book was published in the mid-1990s, and it shows substantial foresight. In later chapters, Singer talks about the need to take action to abate global warming and the greenhouse effect - a problem that is only now gaining the support of the general public.

Peter Singer is a well-known advocate of animal rights and vegetarianism. His position on these subjects pops up regularly throughout the book and his personal values on this issue are unmistakable. As an omnivore, I have to concede that he made some very good points about the impact of meat eating on the environment; and about the treatment of non-human animals - I have been cutting down on meat since I read this book.

I only have two reservations about the book. First, there is a chapter on Japanese society which does not seem to lead to any clear-cut point or conclusion that is related to the rest of the content of the book. Second, Singer's argument in the final chapter is that people who act ethically will lead happier lives, but the evidence he presents for this is scant. As it happens, I agree with him, that people who live outward-looking ethical lives will, more than likely, be happier people. As a philosophical speculation, it's an interesting one, and I think modern psychology is beginning to find the evidence to support this claim.

Singer delivers a well written defense of the ethical life vs a the life driven by narrow self-interest. The book is targeted at a lay audience, so you will not find difficult philosophical arguments, and Singer tries very hard not to jump into the complexities of moral epistemology.

He gives historical overview of the subject (starting from Plato and Aristotle) showing how the idea that "greed is good" (in a very broad sense) started to be accepted with the protestant ethic (all usual references are given to Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism etc ...) and blossomed in modern USA reaching a peak in the 80s (see Ivan Boesky's scandal).

He also gives some evolutionary background to show where our morality comes from and why it makes sense. I particularly appreciated the link to game theory (the usual "prisoner's dilemma" and the interesting work of Robert Axelrod The Evolution of Cooperation: Revised Edition), showing how an ethical life is not for suckers but it is a winning evolutionary strategy.

He also often links to his favorite subjects (animal suffering and environment protection).

These days Singer seems to be moving towards the acceptance of more "objective" moral values (thanks to the latest Parfit's On What Matters (2 Volume Set)), and it is quite interesting to see how he slightly modified his positions over time.

An overall good book, and and nice introduction to the subject.

Peter Singer is my hero. I just wish I could live up to his standards. Have some reservations about his comment re psychoanalysis. Changing outward life circunstances don't automatically alter inner dynamics.

The book overall was awesome. However, it took longer than expected to get the book.