Practical Ethics

Peter Singer delves in to some of the most controversial and relevant ethical dilemmas in our day with a strong clarity and simplicity of prose. His writing style is that of a man who tinkers with ideas, going down a path to see what comes out. The reader will find that when you follow this path, the results can be fascinating, unsettling and sometimes contradictory. For example, his unassailable logic leads him to presume that it is less just to kill an animal for meat than it is to kill a fetus. Many critics have responded to these contradictions but his logic as outlined in this book is difficult to deny. Because he focuses on 'practical ethics' he discusses only topics on which there is still honest debate, or in which there are emerging ethical problems such as euthanasia and abortion. I bought this book to read the words of an intelligent philosopher and possibly have a better justification for my 'political views' on these topics but I never though they would directly apply to me (except the meat-eating portions). But shortly after reading this book I was faced with some ethical problems brought on by modern advancements in medical technology. The thought-processes that this book stimulated in my mind allowed me to more clearly make some important decisions that one doesn't face in everyday life without worrying about meaningless objections. That is one of the biggest compliments that a book like this can generate, is that is useful. This book clearly dismantles some of the historical baggage we have in our decision making based on debunked ways of looking at the world. It is amazing that in our modern, educated world we haven't moved past these biases towards things that are unsettling, or icky for no logical reason. I include myself in that previous sentence. More specifically, the author removes the barriers towards general and widespread acceptance of culturally sensitive topics like euthanasia and abortion. When you remove the debunked religious notion of a soul, then some of the main drivers of ethics are suffering and consciousness. The author uses utilitarian philosophical techniques to analyze the suffering related to our modern decision-making. This weighting of suffering and level of consciousness is then used to aid in decision making. For instance, this is how the author concludes that it is less just to kill an animal for meat than a fetus because of the animals greater level of consciousness and possibility of suffering. While this finding may be surprising it is likely true that fetuses don't have a high level of consciousness. This is a topic that I found myself adjusting my views slightly on due to this book although I considered legalization of euthanasia a no-brainer before reading this book. While I didn't agree with the authors conclusions for every topic within the book, I realize that many of the critics are not seriously analyzing his conclusions and are often quote-mining things out of context. There is enough stuff in this book that is controversial to paleo-christians that they don't need to quote infanticide passages out of context to claim Mr Singer is a nazi. Please engage him on the issues, your preliterate shepherding worldview has enough contrast with this mans advanced thinking without lying for Jesus.

Peter Singer is not new under the sun but as an ethicist, he's still one of the most pragmatic. Of course, that would be because he's a utilitarian and I suppose that goes together. He is known equally well, if not more, for his book Animal Liberation which shed light on ethics as it applies to all animals. His arguments are not just intuitive, they are good which is the idea of an argument, that and being convincing of course. I became a vegan after AL because I realized how inconsistent I was being with my ethical arguments. Practical ethics talks about better ways to feed the world, end starvation, abortion, personhood, etc. A good read.

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.

It's a good read and understandable for a normal person with no prior schooling in philosophy. interesting concepts, definitely gives you food for thought.

Quality book in fine condition delivered in a timely way. Thanks.

A well-rounded book offering arguments from multiple sides. While Peter Singer's philosophies are sometimes quite flawed, I believe, they spark interesting discussions.