Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Writings on an Ethical Life Paperback – September 18, 2001
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently Bought Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Singer first gained eminence for his profoundly important early work on animal rights, arguing convincingly for vegetarianism and against the commonplace cruel treatment of animals by large commercial interests. However, he has probably attracted the most notoriety for his much-maligned writings in defense of abortion rights and certain forms of euthanasia. Singer is frequently misunderstood, misquoted, and demonized. Ironically, the ferocity of his detractors--particularly during his appointment as DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University--has generated nearly unheard-of exposure for an academic philosopher. While a small portion of Singer's work has been catapulted into the limelight, lay audiences have often overlooked other equally important ideas--unfortunate, because he is a wonderfully plainspoken and powerful writer: "Where so many are in such great need, indulgence in luxury is not morally neutral, and the fact that we have not killed anyone is not enough to make us morally decent citizens of the world." It is no wonder Singer is so controversial and influential. --Eric de Place --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Publishers Weekly
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Top Customer Reviews
Singer is not a monster, and though some of his ideas are disturbingly cold and mechanical, the majority of his ideas, and his philosophy as a whole, are deeply humane. To understand this, you must read him. Not agree with him, but read him.
How dull our lives would be if we were only exposed to comfortable ideas which reinforced our own beliefs. My beliefs have become clearer and stronger because of Singer's challenges, and I am grateful to his writings for helping me think less hypocritically about the world. I've still got leather shoes, and I still value a newborn human more than a newborn rodent, but I am also much more aware of how I spend my money and about what the choices I make in life really mean. This book is a well-edited survey of Singer's thoughts and ideas, his challenges and critiques, his justifications and juxtapositions, his philosophies.
One writer writes that "Are we to believe that animals have a since of I or me" and "Does this mean that when an animal hurts, kills or steals from another that she should be charged with assault, murder or theft?" Of course not. Singer would never make such an outlandish assertion nor would even a first year grad student in philosophy. Another reader objects to infanticide, but the argument Singer gives-one on personhood-is sound and valid. It draws its ideas from both Judith Jarvis Thompson's essay and Michael Tooley's essay on that subject, which are both still preeminent. Singer does have some nice explanations to professional arguments on the other side too that neither Thompson nor Tooley address (because they are writing their own arguments). One of my favorite quotes on personhood and infanticide, for example, pithy, but to the point, is this: "Dropping an egg into boiling water is not the same as dropping a live chicken into boiling water" and this "The fact that Price Charles will be the king of England does not mean that he is now the King of England." In other words, infants are not the same as thinking and reasoning beings, and thinking, reasoning, self aware beings are the only beings we ascribe "personhood" to, and persons are the only "things" that get to claim an ethical right to life. If this weren't true, and Singer makes this point, then everything that lives could be said to claim a right to life. This sound reasoning is not as easily dismissed as some think. (And don't hit me on those two simple examples. Read the essays and do your own research.)
Last, one reader objects because "if one were to take seriously his premise that we ought to do whatever we can in our power to help those in dire need, no one could ethically spend a dime on anything other than "necessities" (which also raises a question about what constitutes a "necessity" versus a "luxury").
First, what he means is that if people are in dire need of no fault of their own, then we should and are morally bound to help them. If that means buying nothing more than necessities, then our moral obligations override luxuries. Think of it this way. Your mother, and I use "mother" here because that brings it right home, has cancer and needs an operation. The only way she can afford it is for you to pay for it. However, you want that new Humvee. Are you morally obligated to pay for your mother's operation rather than buy the Humvee? Singer thinks so. And the distinction between what a luxury `is' means nothing more than that.
For those reading reviews, or anything for that mattter, remeber to always look for examples when a person says X is bad. Look for what comes after that assertion. Look for examples and an explanation of WHY it is bad, and then see if the reasons add up to the objections.
I hope I have provided at least some good examples of why I think many misunderstand Singer and have provided you with at least two essays (Thompson and Tooley) for further reading on the subject of abortion and infanticide.
Anyways, Singer is definitely right that the last edifice of pre-Darwinian (or pre-Copernican) thought is the idea of humnan life as intrinsically more estimable than other life, no ifs ands or buts. Singer explores the implications of this fairly, admitting that he doesn't have all the answers (no dogma here) but offering well-thought-out new proposals for action given the world view we'll have to adopt.
Sure, some of the things here are controversial, but the fact is that a lot of the things our current society does are absurd. When slavery was the norm, a book by someone saying slavery was immoral and unjust would have been seen as "controversial" as well. While reading this, you must separate yourself from your own and your culture's moral values and view the issues purely on their own as much as possible. 50 years from now, you'll look back and realize how right he was.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
While it is true, it is a bit of an elementary explanation for everything.
learned about other very interesting subjects which
are as well very important in our life.