Summary
Highlights
Peter Singer is a leading contemporary utilitarian and applied ethicist known for his preference utilitarianism, a modern variant of the philosophy. His works, particularly "Practical Ethics," outline his ethical approach, introduce a new concept of 'person,' and apply these ideas to controversial areas like abortion and euthanasia. Singer, born in 1946, is also a prominent animal rights activist and co-founder of 'Ethical Altruism,' involved with organizations like the Australian Green Party and Oxfam.
Singer's preference utilitarianism focuses on maximizing the fulfillment of interests or 'preferences' rather than pleasure or minimizing displeasure. Preferences encompass all rational and emotional desires, including the basic interest in continued life. It considers both current and future-oriented interests. An action is morally good if it satisfies as many preferences as possible for all involved. Ethics, for Singer, adopts a universal viewpoint, requiring impartial judgment and equal weighing of all interests, regardless of nationality, gender, or social status. However, moral judgments are situation-dependent.
Singer categorizes beings into three classes based on their capacity for preferences. Class 1 includes unconscious beings (e.g., plants, fetuses) with no intrinsic value or conscious experiences, thus no moral obligations to them. Class 2 comprises conscious and sentient beings (e.g., animals with a central nervous system, newborns, severely handicapped individuals) who can feel pleasure and pain, possess intrinsic value, but are considered individually replaceable if their death serves greater interests, as their preferences are not future-oriented.
Class 3, 'Persons,' includes self-aware beings like humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, whales, and dolphins. These beings have a sense of identity over time, are sentient, and autonomous. They possess long-term, complex, and future-oriented preferences, granting them an individual right to life and immunity from individual substitutability. Disregarding a person's preferences, especially regarding their life, carries significant moral weight. Singer's definition of a person stands in stark contrast to traditional, especially Christian, views of human life.
Singer's controversial thesis, "Human life is not sacred," leads to two main conclusions: a strong appreciation for animals and a rejection of the concept of inherent human dignity. Only those with rationality and self-awareness have a right to life. This means that human embryos, newborns, severely disabled individuals, and those in a coma are not considered 'persons' and lack an individual right to life. Singer argues against 'speciesism,' the arbitrary preference for one's own species, viewing it as akin to racism or sexism. He emphasizes cognitive abilities over species affiliation.
Singer's framework has profound consequences for animal and medical ethics. In animal ethics, practices like fur farming, factory farming, and animal experiments are deemed illegitimate due to the immense suffering inflicted. Great apes, classified as 'persons,' are granted a right to life and equal moral consideration, making animal experimentation and zoo confinement morally illegitimate. In medical ethics, the killing of non-persons (severely disabled infants, dementia patients, comatose individuals) and practices like preimplantation genetic diagnosis are considered legitimate under certain conditions. Singer challenges the sanctity of human life, stating that not every human life has an unconditional right to exist.
Singer's views have drawn intense criticism, particularly from disability associations, who see his downgrading of disabled individuals as inhumane and reminiscent of Nazi-era euthanasia discussions. Critics also point out that beings with the potential to become persons (like newborns) would lack an unconditional right to life in Singer's currentist concept. Despite the controversy, Singer is lauded for his commitment to global justice, environmental protection, and animal rights, advocating for the consideration of interests across national and species boundaries. The debate continues on whether to break with the traditional ethic of the sanctity of human life.