For this post, I wanted to focus on a public intellectual who has greatly influenced the landscape of public opinion. It didn’t take me very long to think of Peter Singer, a philosopher working at Princeton University. When most people think of philosophy, they probably picture a bunch of old men writing convoluted papers about impossibly obscure ideas. In a lot of cases, this impression is fair. Anyone who’s tried reading Hegel, Sartre, Heidegger etc. likely gave up after fifty pages (at the most). I think philosophy (even convoluted philosophy) has a lot of value, but it often fails to reach most people due to excessively academic writing. On the other hand, Singer frequently writes articles and papers aimed at the average non-philosophically trained person. Because of this, he has arguably become one of the most influential philosophers of the 21st century. In this post, I’ll explain his theories on animal rights, altruism, and disability while addressing the pitfalls his utilitarian theory can lead to.
Defining Consequentialism and Utilitarianism
Peter Singer’s philosophy can be described with two words: consequentialist and utilitarian. Consequentialism is the view that the moral value of an action is determined by its consequences. For an action to be wrong, it would need to cause something we consider wrong. For it to be right, it would cause something that we consider good. Essentially, consequentialism removes moral value from an action itself and transfer it to the consequences that the action causes.
Utilitarianism is simply a more complete form of consequentialism. Upon hearing the definition for consequentialism, a huge question may have popped into your mind: how do we decide if a consequence is “good” or “bad”? Utilitarianism seeks to solve this dilemma by arguing that a result is good is it causes overall happiness in the world and bad if it causes the opposite (pain, dissatisfaction, etc.). Utilitarianism states that the moral value of actions should always be determined by whether that action caused happiness or pain.
Utilitarianism has the appeal of making moral decision-making far simpler. Moral dilemmas can be (relatively) easily solved by merely asking which decision will cause more happiness or less pain. However, it can lead to some highly un-intuitive moral claims. For example, imagine a man is considering cheating on his wife. Traditionally, cheating on your wife would be considered immoral due to the obligation of faithfulness stemming from marriage. Does this intuition change if the woman you cheated with gained more happiness than your wife lost? According to utilitarianism, this scenario changes everything. If all moral obligations boil down to creating happiness and minimizing pain, a husband would be obligated to cheat on his wife if his mistress became happier than his wife became sad.
Utilitarianism can lead to some very controversial moral judgments. For this very reason, Peter Singer is a heavily divisive figure despite his wide influence. In this rest of this post, I’ll summarize some of his more famous arguments and explain where I think they go wrong.
Animal Rights
Peter Singer has a special emphasis on the value of animal life. In his paper All Animals are Equal, Singer described his goal by stating:
“We need to consider them [our most fundamental attitudes] from the point of view of those most disadvantaged by our attitudes, and the practices that follow from these attitudes…. My aim is to advocate that we make this mental switch in respect of our attitudes and practices towards a very large group of beings: members of species other than our own—or, as we popularly though misleadingly call them, animals. In other words, I am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species.”Singer frequently compares the plights of animals (the meat industry, zoos, etc.) to those of humans. Cannibalism and imprisoning innocent people are considered immoral by most people. However, the same actions are traditionally considered permissible when done to animals.
Singer believes that those who fail to defend animal rights will be on the wrong side of history, much like those who failed to stand up to slavery. This view is further elaborated on in his paper Chimpanzees are People, Too in which he states:
“In reading the works of scientists like Jane Goodall or Dian Fossey, we have no difficulty in recognizing that the great apes they describe are persons. They have close and complex personal relationships with others in their group. They grieve for lost loved ones. They are self-aware beings, capable of thought. Their foresight and anticipation enable them to plan ahead. We can even recognize the rudiments of ethics in the way they respond to other apes who fail to return a favor.”In this paper, Singer clearly maps out his view that some animals (like chimpanzees) have the same level of personhood as humans. While this paper could be framed as an elevation of the value of animals, it could also be framed as a devaluation of humans. While apes may show significant similarities with humans, it’s a stretch to argue that they’re barely different from humans (outside of species). Apes may have close and complex relationships, but they aren’t nearly as close and complex as human connections. His statement that they are self-aware and capable of thought would require a clear-cut definition of “self-aware” and much more evidence than exists that they have awareness on the level of humans. His final statement about apes showing rudiments of ethics is a huge oversimplification of morality. An action leading to punishment from a disadvantaged person is not the same as an action being “wrong”. While Singer’s paper should be praised for its clarity and honesty, it severely suffers from an oversimplification of the attributes that make humans unique. Without an ethic that addresses value removed from happiness and pain, this pitfall is only natural.
Altruism
In 1972, Peter Singer wrote an incredibly influential paper called Famine, Affluence, and Morality. In this paper, he argues that the wealthy have a moral obligation to help the poor. Upon first hearing this argument, it sounds un-controversial. Everyone agrees that it’s good to help the poor. However, Singer isn’t only stating that it’s “good” to give to the poor. He says that it’s obligatory:
“The outcome of this argument is that our traditional moral categories are upset. The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn or at least, not in the place we normally draw it. Giving money to the Bengal Relief Fund is regarded as an act of charity in our society. The bodies which collect money are known as “charities”…. Because giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving. The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned.”This section of the paper calls for an increase in moral obligation and an elimination of the idea of non-obligatory charity. However, this argument still seems to ignore the increased obligation that comes from human connection. Intuitively, a mother has more obligation to provide for her children than she does to donate to the Bengal relief fund. However, if it’s fully obligatory to donate to the Bengal relief fund, does that put it on the same level of obligation as providing for your children? Singer’s utilitarianism removes morality from individuals and their relationships with each other, supporting “happiness” itself over the individual relationships that create increased obligations.
Disability
Now I’ll delve into (arguably) Singer’s most controversial stance. In his paper Pulling Back the Curtain on the Mercy Killing of Newborns, Singer maps out three scenarios in which one could make the decision to end the life of a newborn:
1) When the child will certainly die soon after birth no matter how many medical interventions are undertaken.
2) When the child can be kept alive for an extended period but only with the use of extraordinary medical means (like respirators).
3) When the child has a hopeless prognosis…she will survive without medical intervention but will always have extreme suffering.
Singer correctly acknowledges that it is common to allow a newborn to die in the first two scenarios (and that even the Catholic Church permits this). In this article, he argues that it is morally permissible to actively kill a newborn in the third scenario (a practice known as the Groningen protocol). Due to the cultural acceptance of allowing infants to die in the first two scenarios, Singer argues:
“The dispute is no longer about whether it is justifiable to end an infant’s life if it won’t be worth living but whether that end may be brought about by active means, or only by the withdrawal of treatment. I believe the Groningen protocol to be based on the sound ethical perception that the means by which death occurs is less significant, ethically, than the decision that it is better that an infant’s life should end. If it is sometimes acceptable to end the lives of infants in group two -- and virtually no one denies this -- then it is also sometimes acceptable to end the lives of infants in group three.”Singer’s argument is the perfect example of the intuitively disturbing conclusions utilitarianism and consequentialism can lead to. If moral value is only determined by the consequences of an action, then there is no difference between stabbing an infant and allowing her to die without extreme medical intervention. His argument is informed by utilitarianism because it sees preventing suffering as the central moral obligation in these scenarios. According to Singer’s utilitarianism, if an infant’s life will be painful, then it cannot have value and should be terminated early. It leads to some worrying potential consequences. If we believe an infant should be killed to prevent future suffering, would we say the same about disabled adults? Should we say the same about older people suffering from excruciating hip pains or muscle aches? If we determine all value based on a balance of suffering and pain, a lot of intuitively horrifying actions could be considered permissible.
Sources
1. Singer, Peter. All Animals are Equal. spot.colorado.edu. Date of access: 9/16/22. https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf
2. Singer, Peter. “Chimpanzees are People, Too.” nydailynews.com. 2014. Date of access: 9/16/22. https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/peter-singer-chimpanzees-people-article-1.1982262
3. Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” rintin.colorado.edu. 1972. Date of Access: 9/16/22. https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil308/Singer2.pdf
4. Singer, Peter. "Pulling Back the Curtain on the Mercy Killing of Newborns." latimes.com. 2005. Date of Access: 9/16/22. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-mar-11-oe-singer11-story.html
Comments