Customer Reviews

Practical Ethics

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Those who come to Singer's book expecting to be applauded for their preconceived notions of right and wrong may be disappointed. Singer's book is actually one long argument for his particular brand of consequentialist ethics, and it leaves aside any mollifying lip-service to contract ethics, deontological ethics, or relativist thinking. It refuses to traffic in over-simplified religious notions of morality, or in ethical systems based upon sheer self-interest. Singer is interested in a reasoned approach to ethics, and this is exactly what he delivers.

In this book, you will be introduced early to the basic principles of Singer's utilitarian ethics, and these principles will be reviewed again and again as the argument builds from issues of basic equality, through animal rights and medical ethics, to the ethics of international relations and environmentalism. The argument is cumulative, building upon itself in clear steps as it goes along. While I've read some folks who clearly don't get what Singer has to say, I think that can only happen when we let our own prejudices get in the way of understanding the book. I've never read a clearer account of an ethical system anywhere.

You may not agree with what Singer has to say. Many don't. But if you approach this book as an honest reader, rather than as a person hunting for reasons to be angry or offended, then you will find an elegance to Singer's approach which is to be found nowhere else. If this kind of honest reading is outside your range of interests, you may wish to ask yourself why you are reading philosophy in the first place.

The most compelling part of the book, for me, was Singer's thorough and patient discussion of the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. This principle, combined with a universal view of ethics and a healthy respect for realistic circumstances, can take the place of much more convoluted conceptions of rights and duties. I found the idea liberating when I first encountered it, and it has proved very "teachable" in my classroom.

Towards the end of the book, Singer makes some claims that I found myself questioning, but these claims did not detract seriously from my enjoyment of the book. Nor did they undermine the overall power of Singer's argument.

I highly recommend this book to people who are looking for a clear, consistent approach to humanist ethics. I also recommend it to those who enjoy reading carefully crafted arguments. The book may make you squirm. It may make you question your own practices. But it will not bore you.

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.

I am amazed at the number of people who criticize Peter Singer's work, Practical Ethics, by somehow pointing to his contradictions. I need to remind some of you that if there is one thing professional philosophers know something or two about is contradictions, and if any of you have spent a little time in a philosophy class, you might understand the importance of Singer's work.

When I read some of these self-assured reviewers, who, for the most part, lack any training in logic and rigorous philosophical analysis but love to throw the term "contradiction" around, as a form of self-adulation, I chuckle. Regrettably, what I do find are people who build straw-man arguments, abandon the principle of charity, and engage in ad hominem attacks. Singer is a respected scholar, which doesn't mean you have to agree with him. But it would behoove many of you to follow this instructive maxim: before you go on writing a scathing review, make sure you understand the ideas FIRST. You would sound foolish, as some people on these posting do, criticizing something you don't fully understand.