Practical Ethics by Peter Singer

Practical Ethics Reviews

• 
  Emma Sea

  Practical Ethics is one of those books that authors cite all the time, but which I had never actually read**. In terms of discussing personal ethics in a humanist framework, there's nothing better than this book. Singer goes through the issues so clearly and yet conversationally, and also thoroughly addresses criticisms of and weaknesses in his arguments.
  
  However I was unprepared for Singer appearing to be in favour of euthanizing babies with Down syndrome and Myelomeningocele (spina bifida) (pp. 127-138). Singer refers to children with these conditions as "defective". WHAT. THE. EVERLOVING. FUCK?! When people cite Singer they always seem to skip this bit. Singer's reasoning here is the lack of mobility, lack of bladder control, and "mental retardation" makes a life with spina bifida not worth living, and that people with Down Syndrome are not capable of rational reasoning, rather, leading lives primarily driven by emotions, and are therefore not persons ("although their lives may be pleasant enough, as the lives of children are"). (You'll be happy to know Singer excludes haemophilia: haemophiliacs "find life worth living". Also, "it could be that a childless couple would be prepared to adopt a haemophiliac" (p. 138) if the parent doesn't want them.)
  
  Singer states, "killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all" (p. 138).
  
  I acknowledge this is an incredibly complex situation, and one I have never been in (and likely will never be). People in this situation may make different decisions.
  
  I support abortion: I believe a human's right to determine what happens to their body overrides the rights of the potential human.
  This couple would have aborted their fetus had they known she would be disabled. This is the mother's decision: her right to decide, not mine. But the implication here is that they would have preferred the right to kill the infant once born. Ethically is there a difference? This is the basis of Singer's argument.
  
  
  Dr Henk Prins did just this: he euthanized newborn Rianne Quirine Kunst at the parents' request, because she had "hydrocephaly, spina bifida and leg deformities".
  This British ethicist argues that a post-birth abortion is no different to a pre-birth abortion.
  
  But where do we draw the line? Who gets to judge if a life is worth living? The voices of those affected by euthanasia are often the
  least likely to be heard. It's so complex, but I do know there is absolutely no way I could ever support the right of a parent to euthanise a infant with Down syndrome. No way. Nope. It would mean we have the right to determine which kind of conscious, self-aware life can have meaning. A determination that difference = disposable.
  
  So I think to myself, at the extreme end, what about an infant with no brain at all, would I be OK with euthanizing this hypothetical infant? Then I find out
  that's not unheard of. Nicholas Coke lived three years with no brain, but with a brain stem. As Nicholas was from the US I cringe to think what medical costs the family was shouldering, as he needed 12 daily medications. But
  this Kiwi kid needs to raise NZ$500,000 a year for his medical costs, and I couldn't possibly consider for a second that we have a right to euthanize him. And Nicholas's family describe him
  laughing and finding things funny. That doesn't sound like a life with no meaning.
  
  What I do know is I personally could never make the determination to euthanise anyone but myself (and I do hope NZ has legalised euthanasia when I get to the end of my life, whenever that may be).
  
  Anyway, I'm rating the book a five. Although I don't agree with Singer on everything, it's incredibly thought-provoking. And I'm going to read some of his more recent work, as I assume he has modified his stance on infant euthanasia in the last 30 years (or maybe not, who knows).
  
  
  
  ** Clearly I'm not the only one. While I was reading this on lunch breaks three different people said to me, "Ohhh, you're reading Singer!". When I asked if they had read him, they all said no, but they'd read of and on him frequently.
• 
  Amirography

  Of course this book is far from impartial. But it offer good and scrupulous arguments for his choices.
  The book is written in a very dry and unhelpfully, boring manner. Yet the content of the book is far from boring.
  I'm not going to write more on this review, my dog is barking at me to take him for a walk.
• 
  Conrad Zero

  Practical Ethics was recommended to me by my ethics professor. She claimed that the book was the reason she became a vegetarian.
  
  Reading this book will be an eye-opening experience for many. The discussions tackle the biggest questions facing ethics. At what point should we consider a fetus a human being? What is the value of one human life compared to another? Why worry about saving the environment?
  
  A highlight of the text is that Singer starts with a simple question or example which you will intuitively answer. He then follows the line of logic to a conclusion that may surprise or even shock you. This will make you go back and analyze your own values and presumptions. In that respect, Practical Ethics is an amazing and thought-provoking work.
  
  Because of this structure, Practical Ethics needs to be read in order. Chapters build on arguments made (and supposedly resolved, or at least presumed to be resolved) in previous chapters. So you can't just jump to the clickbait 'euthanasia' section and come away with a clear understanding. The conclusions can run counter to conventional wisdom, but he's not afraid to follow the logic.
  
  It will be no surprise that Singer gets plenty of flak on his conclusions, some of which comes from people who didn't get the whole picture. (See the appendix of the 2nd edition to learn how he was unfairly treated in Germany for exactly this reason...)
  
  All that said, I did find the final chapter discussion of 'why we should act morally' would have fit better at the beginning of the book. Although the results of that discussion are probably the most eye-opening of all, and I can understand why the author would hold that big reveal off till the end.
  
  Regardless of whether I agreed or disagreed with Singer's conclusions, Practical Ethics helped me to clarify my own position on complicated and emotionally loaded issues like abortion, euthanasia, animal rights and environmental ethics. It made me more aware of critical aspects of what it means to be human in the first place.
  
  And No, reading Practical Ethics did not turn me into a vegetarian. Your mileage may vary...
  
  -Zero
• 
  Nick Black

  Read down in Savannah back in 2002; I picked up an archival copy back in 2004. Lots of good thinking here, but Singer's *way* too quick to consider something "conclusively demonstrated." I found his animal rights doctrine a particularly grotesque pill to swallow, and his arguments regarding abortion rather slipshod reasoning (although not so much as the roe v wade decision itself) -- I'm staunchly pro-choice, but certainly not due to Singer-style arguments. For that matter, the 700,000 Americans arrested each year for marijuana possession -- the major ethical failure of our times, and a barbarism that future generations will look upon with shudders -- are never mentioned. Sorry Pete, but while billions of dollars are being spent to restrict basic pharmaceutical freedoms, the cows can wait.
  
  For a non-scientist, though, his reasoning's not too bad and cut well above the typical jib surrounding such passionate topics. Until my comrades in the neurological arts get off their duffers and solve this problem, armchair ethicists like Singer will lead the way.
  
  (Singer, featured on the cover, is far too thin and needs badly to eat some delicious animals. It'd probably leave him much less worried and flighty.)
  
• 
  Paulla Ferreira Pinto

  Deliciei-me a ler, quase compulsivamente, esta ética prática relatada com recurso a uma linguagem totalmente acessível a leigos e na qual são suscitadas perspectivas de temas actualíssimos que se espera que façam o leitor questionar as suas prévias concepções,assim as tivesse, ou a pensar em matérias da maior importância com as quais, por qualquer motivo, não se tivesse cruzado ou nas quais não houvesse reflectido.
  Independentemente de se concordar ou não com as posições do autor - e, na verdade, no que me respeita, não vejo muito por onde discordar, pese embora a “novidade” de algumas das soluções-, o que mais me surpreendeu em toda a obra foi o capítulo complementar em que é relatado o extremismo radical- expressão pleonástica propositadamente utilizada- dos que discordam das posições de Singer, que na Alemanha das décadas de 80 e 90 chegou a atingir foros de censura que nem o passado de má memória deste país justifica.
  Renovo os meus agradecimentos a quem, por interposta e bem intencionada pessoa, me recomendou a obra, sendo que à dita interposta e bem intencionada pessoa já fui manifestando o meu agrado e reconhecimento pela generosa mediação.
  
  
• 
  Sahil Vaidya

  Practical Ethics is a great book to start your journey in the complicated field of ethics, especially for a philosophy neophyte (such as I am). It has been written in a very accessible manner so you don't have to worry about your brain getting blown to smithereens by the complexity of the concepts or the dire nature of the commentary- characteristics that many who attempt to read philosophy have come to detest.
  
  For someone who hasn't read much on this subject, this book can shake many assumptions that they have taken for granted and offers an excellent approach on how to think about them.
  
  It covers diverse topics- from animal rights and abortion to civil disobedience and charity and argues effectively to upend many of the ideas that we may hold, thanks to societal/theological conditioning or just because we've never taken the effort to reflect upon and question them. Some conclusions may certainly shock the reader, which is why I found this to be a very thought-provoking (yet well-balanced and non-aggressive) read.
  
  On the whole, it might massively benefit you (and the society) by nudging you to walk the ethical path. The title contains the word 'Practical' for a reason.
• 
  Worthless Bum

  *I am presently homeless and can only use the public library's computers for a limited amount of time each day, so this review is probably going to be done piecemeally.
  
  One thing I had been wondering about Peter Singer for some time now is what his position is on meta-ethics. It is well know that he is a preference utilitarian, and he spends the bulk of his books discussing the application of that normative system. What I hadn't remembered from my previous reading of this book is that Singer lays out his stance on meta-ethics in chapter 1. What is clear from that reading is that Singer does not hold to any particular meta-ethical view, but maintains that several meta-ethical positions are plausible. Among these are the prescriptivism of his former instructor R.M. Hare, J.L. Mackie's error theory, and some form of ideal observer theory.
  
  Singer goes on to discuss different conceptions of equality, ultimately arriving at the one that forms the basis of applicability for his system of ethics. Basing ethical equality on a descriptive property shared by the bearers of ethical considerablility does not work because only some subset of said bearers may have that property, and not to the same degree. For instance, using self awareness as the basis for equality would likely include only subsets of a handful of species, including humans. If such a criterion were consistently applied, infants and some severely mentally handicapped persons would be excluded. Such people would be but objects for us to use at our disposal.
  
  Singer goes through a number of possible criteria of this kind, each time showing some critical flaw in what its logical consequences would have us do. The system of equality that Singer ends up with is one that owes a great deal to R.M. Hare, who in turn derives a major component of his ethics from Kant's categorical imperitive, which states: "act only according to that maxim that whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". Thus, for Hare as well as Singer, universalizabiltiy in ethics is a fundamental concept, to be applied across the board in all like cases. For Singer, this means that the interests of all beings are to be weighted equally. My interests don't count for more simply because they're MY interests, for example.
  
  From there Singer applies preference utilitarianism with the above mentioned conception of equality to what he considers to some of the biggest ethical problems of our time. These include world hunger, euthanasia, abortion, speciesism, environmentalism, and refugee issues. With that it is time for us to turn our attention to these issues.
  
  Speciesism: In terms of the scale of the suffering involved, and the damage done to the environment thereby, speciesism and the manner in which humans treat non-human animals is most probably the biggest ethical problem facing the world today. Billions of animals are raised and killed for food per year in the United States alone, under horrendous conditions for the well being of the animals, and which contributes more to global warming than automobiles. What makes this possible is both a lack of transparency in agribuisness and a moral attitude called "speciesism", which holds that species membership is a valid ethical distinction to make for purposes of the ethical considerability of the beings involved. There is in fact a sharp distinction drawn in many societies between the moral worth of humans versus all other creatures.
  
  The religious history of the world, for Western religions in particular, does not fair well in this regard. For instance, Christian history is full of speciesism justified on the grounds that non-human animals do not have souls. Decartes' monstrous proclamation that non-human animals were like clocks (meaning that they made noises but didn't have minds) paved the way for much cruelty against those creatures.
  
  More to come...
• 
  Oumaima Bendjama

  I picked up Peter Singer's book upon many describing it as a comprehensive introduction to applied ethics, and although I didn't agree with all of Peter Singer's moral judgments he has given me so many valuable tools to think about moral issues. The book has 12 chapters, that touch into topics of equality, equality for animals, killing animals, abortion, Euthanasia, income inequality, climate change, the environment, civil disobedience, and violence.
  

  I don't understand why Singer chose preferential utilitarianism ( which values the fulfillment of the greatest amount of personal interests) over hedonistic utilitarianism ( which values the fulfillment of the greatest amount of personal pleasure) to argue for all the topics he addressed. If we can agree that the role of morality is to advance the well being of humans than it makes sense that we take into account people's pleasure rather than their personal interests. Besides that how do we calculate the value of opposing interests? His choice was obviously a way to escape the problems with classical utilitarianism, which wasn't so convincing to me

  
  

  This, of course, leads him to some counter-intuitive conclusions, he, for example, doesn't see infants as persons, and therefore doesn't consider their killing any worst than killing an animal, of course, he takes into account the fact that human infants have human parents that would have their interests being violated if the infant gets killed, making it worst than killing an animal, but if the parents agree then it isn't any worst.
  Now he doesn't use that to justify killing infants but to argue for euthanasia for infants with severe disabilities, something that I am a little unsettled with

  
  

  At the end of the book Singer tried to make a case for Altruism and for acting morally, by urging us to seek a meaning to life that comes from being a part of an environment that cares for us, and we care for it. But how can we be persuaded by such a plea, if we were asked several times to cast our moral instincts aside, and focus on the reasoning through? wouldn't reason just lead us to egoism? which he acknowledges being the rational thing to do

  
  

  That being said, I absolutely enjoyed it when Singer was being the devil's advocate, and showing the full scope of arguments that exist for and against a certain practice. I find his arguments for abortion and euthanasia to be really well developed. I also liked his arguments on the obligation of the rich countries to aid the poor ones.

  
  

  The climate change chapter was the most challenging to read, because of population ethics that I don't seem to be able to wrap my head around it. I, however, enjoyed the practical suggestion that was mentioned in this chapter like an international carbon trading scheme, and carbon taxation.

  
  

  Overall I think it is pretty obvious that Peter Singer is an empathetic person, trying to do the best he can to convince people to help each other, animals, and the planet effectively.
• 
  Billie Pritchett

  Peter Singer's Practical Ethics is a very considerate book. Singer's writings about equality, the ethical treatment of animals, and ending world poverty are best, it seems to me. I will reframe Singer's positions regarding these, not exactly as Singer put them, but being as charitable as possible as to what he was arguing for. Singer argues that among the varieties of conceptions of equality, we should choose equality of interests of persons (self-conscious rational creatures) and anything capable of experiencing pain or suffering. When we take into account these interests, it becomes abundantly clear that among those who suffer are animals, and by not killing animals for food we could prevent their suffering. Regarding ending world poverty, if we think it is always better, all things being equal, to help someone who is suffering so long as we don't sacrifice anything of comparable moral significance, we should. Therefore, we should help those suffering and subsequently dying of poverty. The ethical treatment of animals and the attempt to end world poverty read as two of the most powerful and convincing arguments I have ever read.
• 
  Hind

  A little tip; when reading Singer, surrender your mind (and your whole self) to Singer. A lot of what he says will sit uncomfortably with your basic instinct and gut feeling (no matter how broad minded you thought yourself to be), yet his arguments are compelling. I’ve spent tremendous time try to rebut his arguments in my head. Unfortunately I was unsuccessful in coming with any, let alone good ones.
  Not many books leave you with this conflicted feeling; I feel what you are saying is mistaken, yet it makes perfect sense.
  
  You are definitely left wanting to explore more. And that’s always good.
  
  
  This book is exactly as titled; practical ethics. I don’t think I’ve read a book that tackles such intricate topics with considerable clarity and simplicity. Literally anyone can pick this book and have no doubt at any given page as to what Singer actually meant. After all, Singer has no time for the theoretical.
  
  
• 
  Nicky

  Interesting, not that I agree with all of it. Pretty easy to read, thankfully, and clear.
  
  Edit on reread: I can understand why this book gets some pretty extreme reactions, now I've read it straight through like this. His view of ethics builds up throughout the book, too, so if you don't read all of it, if you read some of it out of context, then he sounds pretty awful.
  
  It also should, if you're properly thinking about it, make you wonder why our society -- globally -- is the way it is, if we claim to be so concerned with morality. Even Christian ethics points the same way as Singer's ethics, despite his intent to make a new, practical system. Why do we let things go on the way we do?
  
  I do agree with a lot of his conclusions, but not because I've necessarily gone through the same thought process. He points out some discomforting truths.
• 
  Kelly

  [Utilitarian BS] drenched in pseudo-compassion. Absolutely revolting. I highly recommend reading his conversations with Harriet Mcbryde Johnson at the NYT. Singer is (arguably) one of the most *intellectually dangerous* living philosophers. His "ethics" are infectious and insidious in their saccharine self-righteousness. And to top it all off-he's a shit thinker! Where is the rigor?! To every edgelord giving this a 5---GAGF.
• 
  Humphrey J

  Haven't read in full- still confident in saying the text is painfully underwhelming: makes Mill seem well-spirited & subtle.
  Comments on Marxism make me despair that this guy wrote the OUP intro to it.
• 
  Rui Coelho

  This is the kind of "humanist" BS that you are likely to find everyday on Facebook.
• 
  Kaleb

  Singer plays the hits (utilitarianism, abortion, euthanasia, animal well-being, giving to the poor). This is probably the best summary of his overall views, all very well-argued and readable. I always marvel at his ability to anticipate every counter-argument ahead of time and address it. Some conclusions are hard to accept, like euthanasia for disabled infants with parental consent, but it's so well argued that you do find yourself struggling to find out what's wrong with it. Also, decent amount of social science if you're into that sort of thing.
  
  He spent on a chapter on why its wrong to kill, which I thought was the most interesting. Obviously, we all think it is wrong, but for such a strong taboo, it's not clear why it's so bad. Peter pretty convincingly argues that killing is a wrong that can only be done to conscious, self-aware beings (regardless of species). Even a sentient being, who can feel pleasure or pain, is not necessarily wronged by being killed if the death is painless. I think that's probably right and it sets the stage for all his later arguments on animals, abortion, euthanasia and the like.
  
  Also kinda funny that he has such a matter-of-fact, almost dry, way of talking about these gut-wrenching moral issues. Never change Peter.
  
  Quotes
  
  “I have looked at the paintings in the Louvre, and of many of the other great galleries of Europe and the United States. I think I have a reasonable sense of appreciation of the fine arts; yet I have not had, in any museum, experiences that fill my aesthetic senses as they are filled when I hike to a rocky peak and pause there to survey the forested valley below, or if I sit by a stream tumbling over moss-covered boulders set among tall tree ferns growing in the shade of the forest canopy. I do not think I am alone in this – for many people, wilderness is the source of the greatest feelings of aesthetic appreciation, rising to an almost spiritual intensity.”
  
  “For anyone seeking to escape this cycle of accumulation and ruin, ethics can provide a more durable alternative. If we are looking for a purpose broader than our own interests, something that will allow us to see our lives as possessing significance beyond the narrow confines of our wealth or even our own pleasurable states of consciousness, one obvious solution is to take up the ethical point of view. ”
  
• 
  Peter Parnow

  Was soll ik sagen ihr Lieben es ist eins von zwei Sachbüchern die ich in meine Leben gelesen hatte und es ist durchaus gude. Sprache ist easy-peasy und das ist bei einer philosophischen Schrift, was meine beschränkte Erfahrung betrifft, nicht unbedingt der Standard. Mir gefällt das weil man kricht den Gefühl es geht dem Peter tatsächlich um die Sache und nicht um das Profilieren seiner akademischen Persönlichkeit. Klar, es ist nunmehr die wasweißichwievielte Ausgabe und es wurde mal was rausgestrichen und angefügt - sprich: der gute Peter hatte mehr als eine Versuch beim Schreibulieren - aber trotzdessen würde man vllt nicht die Stichhaltigkeit und Tragweite der Argumente erwarten, die man dort unterbreitet bekommt. Dolle Buch
• 
  katie luisa borgesius

  I disagree with Singer's implicit premise that ethics can be systematized or rigorously examined with logic, but taken for what it is this book must be as good as it gets. His arguments are clear and consistent, although he does get a little ad hoc every now and then. Overall it could be useful as heuristics for when you're undecided about the morality of a certain action; but I don't think you can say any of this stuff is right or use it to argue against competing conceptions of ethics.
  
  update 2018-05-23:
  
  i would today like to intensify the opinion expressed above and declare singer to be wholly full of shit
• 
  Soleil

  Offers lots of insight into issues in applied ethics, from euthanasia to climate change. Singer builds his positions using preference-based utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize individuals’ abilities to satisfy their preferences. I loved his discussion around harming potential persons and the ethics of killing animals! At times though, I felt like there was room for more engagement with real-world data and evidence (e.g., Kahneman’s studies on psychological preferences for minimizing suffering versus maximizing happiness, studies on foreign aid sustainability) but learned a lot overall
• 
  Argyros Singh

  Singer si occupa in questo saggio della messa in opera delle teorie sull'etica, in un contesto in cui i sistemi di pensiero sembrano contraddirsi senza soluzioni ragionevoli. L'Autore tratta diversi temi etici, dal concetto di specie all'eutanasia, dai diritti degli animali alla sperimentazione sulle cellule staminali.
  Singer introduce il discorso descrivendo prima ciò che l'etica non è, per poi attribuirle il compito precipuo di guidare la vita nella pratica. Sostenendo una posizione di ispirazione utilitarista, egli mira a circoscrivere un sistema coerente, capace di dialogare anche con altri studi inerenti la teoria dei diritti, l'idea della sacralità della vita, etc.
  I capitoli sono ricchi di spunti di riflessione, ma anche di soluzioni (talvolta decisamente convinte, altre in forma di proposta): in particolare, il capitolo incentrato sul rapporto tra fini e mezzi porta ad una ridefinizione del concetto di disobbedienza civile e dell'azione illegale, pur nella piena coscienza del valore positivo del sistema legislativo democratico, al di là delle singole leggi.
  Nel finale, Singer si domanda perché valga la pena agire moralmente. Le risposte date sono diverse e tutte oggetto di opinioni contrastanti, tuttavia egli ritiene che nel guardare alle cose eticamente vi sia un modo di trascendere le preoccupazioni personali immediate, per potersi così identificare con un punto di vista che sia il più oggettivo possibile.
  L'etica pratica, in poche parole, si configura come una scelta che aspira alla ragionevolezza, alla coerenza e alla presa di coscienza dell'individuo in quanto tale e in quanto membro di un vero e proprio ecosistema.
• 
  Danielle Kim

  i thought this was pretty convincing especially if i put my atheist hat on. the friends i read it with wildly disagreed; generally they felt the anti-speciest argument went too far, and they wanted the book to feel more intuitive. (they didn't find it ironic in the least that this is exactly what singer is pushing against.) i can't decide what to make of this divide between my reaction and their reactions. i had expected to debate the actual particulars of his argument, or if not, debate the merits of consequentialism and/or preference utilitarianism. instead, much of the book was dismissed a priori. i found that frustrating, especially because (unlike my friends) i really do think this book's ideas are pervasive in today's society - even if most people aren't taking them to the extreme. and then i wondered - why don't they? and why don't i?
  
  personally, i used this book as a foil, to really push myself to question what i do, and why, and whether i am falling too short of an ideal.
  
  i also thought a lot about suffering; singer is very anti-suffering. christianity recognizes suffering, but it's hard to argue that it is anti-suffering, because its central belief is predicated on suffering, or more accurately, the overcoming of suffering. what does that mean for a christian activist? to what lengths should i go to prevent suffering in this world, mine or others'? (no one else found this line of thinking at all interesting, by the way. one person said, "suffering exists, and we have to just accept it." another person said, "i give what i can via mutual aid networks, and it's more than i realized i could." fair enough.)
  
  i wanted someone else to relate to this feeling of urgency in the face of an unethical world, an unethical self. or - at the very least - urgency in turning faith into action.
  
  i also felt like i should be vegetarian again, but then decided i should only go vegetarian if i am willing to evangelize my vegetarianism. i don't feel like doing that... unethical?!
  
  in short, reading philosophy with a book club is a risk that i'm not sure i will take again.
• 
  Albert

  Five stars for those interested in ethics.
  
  Practical Ethics covers a range of controversial ethical topics from a preference-utilitarian perspective. Personally I think he does a great job covering most of the topics while providing reason-based objective and impartial arguments on the topic.
  
  Chapter 5 "To take lives: Animals" is perhaps the one that I felt less satisfied with. Singer exposes both existentially-focused and totally-focused view on the interests of beings that are and will be. The investigation becomes rather muddy as soon as he insists that bringing a will-be unlucky child needs, in and by itself, be an unethical choice, regardless of the effects on the parents and society. My feeling is that he unnecessarily complicates his argument. Nonetheless, on the flip side, it effectively presents some other controversial and very interesting points of view such as the one of David Benatar (always wrong to bring a child into existence).
  
  If anything, I would be very keen to hear how other controversial topics would be dealt with from his point of view. Questions such as the risk of (social) media on democracy, societal issues at large, AI and other miscellaneous topics.
  
  His critical analysis in these topics is not helpful in so far as they reach a conclusive answer, but rather in order to present a methodological and rigorous manner in which to objectively and reasonably develop an opinion on heatedly debated topics.
• 
  Amber Rush

  In this book, Singer, best known for his work on speciesm and Utilitarianism, explains how we can incorporate these values into our society. Singer sets out how each species and race is entirely equal and everything and everyone is entitled to the same amount of respect. Singer explains how equality has changed over time standing that 'Racist assumptions shared by most at the turn of the century are now totally unacceptable', The whole time saying that despite our biological differences our natural differences are almost impossible to find. Sanctity of life will only exist if the population can live harmoniously and unite with both fellow homo-sapiens and creatures in our likeness. He shows his interpretation of dominion as a directive to look after our fellows almost as a rule to stewardship. Singer states that animals were created similar to us in Genesis, therefore, deserve our respect and thus shall be included in Utilitarianism. Consistently referring to the 'father' of Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham) original statement of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' and how we can adapt this to modern times, while also including other organisms and giving them the respect they deserve. Controversially, Singer also rebuts his critics and gives other evidence to suggest his the theory is the most believable. Most notably he contradicts the criticism from a Marx perspective which suggests 'Morality is set to the relativism of the dominating socio-economic class' Singer proposes we can change the ethics of the bourgeois by changing our habits, also protesting that we should not conform to constraints when caring for others unless it follows Bentham's principle. 4/5
• 
  Jordan

  I've given Singer a pretty rough time but I admit now that I was mistaken. I had underestimated Singer as a thoughtful philosopher. This was book was very insightful, and much of it is compatible with other ethical traditions. This has made me want to read his other works, particularly the point of view of the universe dedicated to defending utilitarianism rather than simply applying it.
• 
  Todd Martin

  In Practical Ethics Peter Singer (a moral philosopher and professor of bioethics at Princeton University) puts forth the idea of a utilitarian system of ethics based on an “equal considerations of interests”. To quote Singer:
  The essence of the principle of equal consideration of interests is that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions. This means that if only X and Y would be affected by a possible act, and if X stands to lose more than Y stands to gain, it is better not to do the act.
  
  In other words, an interest is an interest, whoever's interest it may be. Thus, to determine whether an act is ethical you would place the interests on a virtual scale and choose the side where the interest is stronger or where several interests combine to outweigh a smaller number of similar interests. Singer then applies this principle to such ethical quandaries as: affirmative action, the treatment of people with disabilities, animal rights, abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, poverty, xenophobia, and the environment.
  
  Singer’s applies compelling and clever logic in support of his arguments. The standard rhetorical technique he uses goes like this:
  Rabbits are used to test cosmetics by spraying chemicals into their eyes. Some intellectually disabled humans have an intellect on par with that of a rabbit. Given the principle of equal consideration, there’s really no difference between testing cosmetics on rabbits and testing them on intellectually disabled humans. Therefore, since we wouldn’t spray chemicals into the eyes of intellectually disabled humans, we shouldn’t spray rabbits with them either.
  You could argue that a human should be given special consideration because they are of our own species (while a rabbit is obviously not), but really, if you accept the principle of equal consideration you’re objections are beside the point.
  
  Though I believe the above and some other conclusions Singer arrives at through his principle are sound, there are situations where an “equal consideration of interests” leads to moral conclusions most would find absurd or abhorrent. Here are a few logical applications of Singer’s consequentialist system:
  1) A cheetah survives only by killing and eating other creatures. Applying Singer’s principle leads to the ethical conclusion that humans should hunt cheetahs to extinction (or somehow force them to eat vegetables instead) to prevent the suffering of their prey. Similarly, all large carnivorous sharks should absolutely be exterminated under Singer’s system because they eat seals and sea lions, sentient mammals which are more conscious of suffering than the toothy fish that consume them. But we really shouldn’t stop there, since the same holds for every other obligate carnivore on the planet as well.
  2) If six people were dying from organ failure it would be ethical under Singer’s system to kidnap a healthy person off the street, kill them and harvest their organs if the action would cure the six invalids.
  3) If rats were overrunning your home, eating your food, biting your children, pooping on the furniture and making your life miserable it would be “species-ist” (Singer’s word for valuing human interests over those of animals) to kill the rats if that were the only way to rid yourself of the problem (since killing the rats is against the rat’s interest, and while the rat’s interests don’t count quite as much as our own, if there were many rats then the total sum of their interests would exceed that of ours).
  4) Singer concludes that the life of a full grown pig and the life of an intellectually disabled new-born human are largely equivalent since these infants have only a low level of consciousness and lack developed interests. If it were therefore shown that an adult pig had interests that were more developed than those of a disabled infant then we’d have to conclude under Singer’s system of ethics that it would be more ethical to eat babies than pork chops. Of course, Singer is completely opposed to eating any animals whatsoever, but he’d have to agree that, for those who do eat meat, baby-chops would ethically be what’s for dinner.
  
  I’ve somewhat distorted Singer’s views in this last point for the sake of humor. Singer’s actual conclusion is that parents should have the right, in consultation with their doctors, to euthanize severely disabled infants. I really don’t have a problem with this approach in circumstances where the infant has no consciousness or their quality of life is severely compromised. But Singer’s views on this issue have caused the book to be met with considerable criticism (not just from the religious right-to-lifers, but from the left as well).
  
  In the end I’m left with the conclusion that Singer is pretty much an ivory tower ethicist and that, while his arguments make for an interesting intellectual/rhetorical exercise, they are only of limited ‘practical‘ value despite the book’s title.
  
• 
  Mollie Pettit

  Loved. It. Singer is so thorough with his points, not only explaining the conclusions he's come to, but also discussing possible objections to those views. Highly recommend. <3
• 
  Vlad Sitalo

  I wanted to Practical Ethics for some time now. It's not exactly the light read, but if you decide to take it in your hands you will find yourself in a possession of a small treasure.
  The sharp reasoning and clear language of the author will lead you on an intellectual journey where you will think through the variety of topics (e.g. abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, animal suffering, poverty, global warming, environment and ethics itself) and quite possibly will change your position on some of them at the end.
  
  You probably won't agree with every conclusion in this book, but it will give you a solid framework for ethical reasoning in the variety of situations.
  
  The author builds upon his previous arguments in the book, so you should not skip parts at the beginning. There he outlines his approach to ethics, starting from the basics of moral reasoning and proceeding to discuss the mentioned issues using postulated principles. He considers the problems at hand not only from his preferred view of ethics (i.e. Preference Utilitarianism) but also from the perspective of other ethical theories out there (e.g. Hedonistic Utilitarianism, Deontology, Theory of rights, etc.). Though I, personally, find the perspective of Preference Utilitarianism the most consistent and compelling one.
  
  On the negative side:
  I did not find the last chapters (12: Why Act Morally) arguments compelling. And I think this part is considerably weaker than other parts of the book. (Though, I must admit that author mentions that some things in this chapter are rather speculative).
• 
  Juan

  Interesting and accessible ethics book. Good to open your perspective on certain topics.
  
  Perhaps I disagree with his notion of ethics derived from scratch using rationale; as opposed to intuitive morality.