A Critical Review of Peter Singer's Practical Ethics

Philosophers of all stripes agree that the essence of ethics is that they are universal. For example, the Golden Rule grants other people the same ethical status that you give yourself. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is similar. In 'Practical Ethics' Peter Singer claims that his version of utilitarianism does a better job of capturing the universal nature of ethics than these other approaches. His reasoning begins with the observation that ethics demands considering more than one's own self-interest. Therefore a truly universal system of ethics demands that we give equal consideration to everyone's interests. This principle of equal consideration of interests is the heart of Singer's utilitarian ethics.

There are two methods for refuting a system of ethics. The first is to find a logical inconsistency. The second is to appeal to the lack of intrinsic beauty and goodness of an ethical system. As Bertrand Russell observed, Nietzsche had a logically consistent ethics, but they were reprehensible. Peter Singer's ethics fail both of these tests.

Singer's Utilitarianism fails the test for beauty and goodness because it could potentially justify genocide on an ethnic or religious minority. Realize that nothing is intrinsically good or bad according to Singer's principle of the equal consideration of interests. Instead, an action is deemed good or bad based on how many people hold a given interest. If most people have an interest in favor of genocide, then utilitarianism says that genocide is the good. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, utilitarianism is two wolves and a lamb voting about what to have for dinner. Of course, there are utilitarian protections that make genocide more difficult than simply holding a vote. Strongly held interests count for more than weakly held interests (page 21), and the principle of declining marginal utility (page 24) further elevates the interests of the threatened minority group. But declining marginal utility is not a substitute for an unalienable right to life; it still places a finite value on a life, which can then be "outvoted" by the majority. A utilitarian justification of genocide is difficult, but by no means impossible. Even if the interests of a member of the minority group count ten times as much as that of the oppressors, it just means that the minority group must make up less than 10% of the population for genocide to be justified. If the minority group starts to internalize the hatred directed towards them, their interests to keep living will weaken, making genocide even more likely. For those with a background in modal logic, there is a possible world in which Singer's utilitarianism justifies genocide. Singer tacitly recognizes this; on page 94 he explains that the type of utilitarianism that results from maximizing interests is called preference utilitarianism, and on page 99 he says "if we are preference utilitarians we must allow that a desire to go on living can be outweighed by other desires."

Utilitarianism also fails the test for logical consistency. For a belief to be held rationally it must be held consistently. This is as true in ethics as it is in science or mathematics. People would not support utilitarianism if they were the victims of genocide or slavery. Furthermore, they would not need to actually to go through the process of being killed to realize that you would not support genocide. A moment's reflection is more than enough. This means that you cannot consistently support Singer's utilitarianism.

Failing either one of these two tests should be enough to sink utilitarianism, but there is also a a third objection, which is that Singer misunderstands the nature of ethics. Singer is correct that ethics demands considering more than your own self-interest, but he draws the wrong conclusion when he says that ethics should then be about the consideration of everyone's interests. This forces you to give the same consideration to bad interests, such as wanting to kill members of an ethnic minority, as does to good interests. Instead, ethics are really about right and wrong. Wanting to kill members of an ethnic minority is just as wrong whether one person feels that way, or all of society.

This realization opens the problem of distinguishing between right and wrong. One method of doing this is by appealing to an objective ethical standard such as unalienable rights. This is not likely to appeal to an atheist like Singer, but the second method is more neutral. Singer accepts that ethics are (1) not about self-interest, (2) universal, and (3) rationality should guide our ethical thought. With this foundation in place, logic can reveal why some actions are wrong and others are right. Consider this analogy; a scientist may believe in a certain theory at one point in time, and then change his mind as new evidence is found. However, logic dictates that he would be irrational if he both supported and rejected the theory at the same time. That same principle applies to ethics. You cannot be rational and believe than an action is both ethical and unethical at the same time.

This is precisely the point being made in the second objection to utilitarianism: the example of genocide shows that supporters of utilitarianism cannot consistently hold their beliefs. This means that logical consistency does a better job of capturing the universal nature of ethics. In Formal Ethics the logician Harry Gensler formalizes this intuitive view that universal ethics must be logically consistent and then uses it to derive a proof of the Golden Rule (he has a more accessible proof in another book, An Introduction to Logic). There is one caveat, which is that a literal version of the Golden Rule leads to absurdities (such as masochists being granted permission to harm others), but the sophisticated version Gensler proves avoids these problems. The moral of the story (pun intended) is that the Golden Rule captures the essence of the universal nature of ethics better than Singer's principle of equal consideration of interests.

A final objection to 'Pratical Ethics' is that Singer cannot present a reasonable defense of why you should be ethical. Why not just follow your own self-interest? This is a difficult challenge to all atheists. Singer takes a common approach, which is to defend morality on the grounds that being moral is really the best method of advancing your own self-interest. Singer begins with the observation that practical reasoning starts with wanting something (page 322). Societies reflect the majority of their members, so societies "want" what the majority wants. If society "wants" to be ethical, then it can reward people for being ethical with social approval (page 323). Thus being ethical advances your self-interest (page 326).

There are several problems with using self-interest as a justification for ethics. The first is that, as Singer concedes on page 335, "ethically indefensible behavior is not always irrational." In other words, ethics does not always coincide with self-interests. The second problem is that Singer's concept of ethics no longer makes any sense. In the opening chapter Singer claims that the essence of ethics is that it demands considering more than your own self-interest, but in the closing chapter he says that the only reason to be ethical is to advance your self-interest. This realization means that ethics is not *really* about "equal consideration of interests" but rather an elaborate hoop to jump through in order to get a pat on the back from society. A third problem with Singer's justification is how it would influence the process of switching from one system of ethics to another. People who strongly value the society's pat on the back would lobby for stronger ethical barriers out of pure self-interest, whereas people who do not value the pat on the back would lobby for lower ethical barriers in order to better pursue their material self-interest.

Peter Singer claims that his version of utilitarianism does a better job of capturing the universal nature of ethics than these other approaches. His reasoning begins with the observation that ethics demands considering more than one's own self-interest.

Utilitarianism = contrived word meaning what is best for the organism as a whole, suggesting that at least man, if not all living plants and beasts are part of that same organism.

I.E., discard what is useless to the organism as a whole, or does not contribute back to the organism, that being in Singer's model, life on earth in general.

When I was pregnant with my first baby some lots of years ago, I was sick...very ill...for 8.5 months. I had to have intravenous fluids because I was so dehydrated. According to Singer I was a useless eater (though I couldn't eat) for 8.5 months. My offspring in his maturity became a productive adult and provided me 3 beautiful little grandsons.

Singer is a nutcase who spends entirely too much time alone absorbed in his own version of reality. Probably nobody ever loved him and he surely seems incapable of love. Talk about black holes? Here's a live one.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.