Practical Ethics

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.

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.

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.

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 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.