Writings on an Ethical Life

by Peter Singer

Book Overview

Love him or hate him, you certainly can't ignore him. For the past twenty years, Australian philosopher and professor of bioethics Peter Singer has pushed the hot buttons of our collective conscience. In addition to writing the book that sparked the modern animal rights movement, Singer has challenged our most closely held beliefs on the sanctity of human life, the moral obligation's of citizens of affluent nations toward those living in the poorest...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0060007443
• ISBN13: 9780060007447
• Release Date: September 2001
• Publisher: Ecco Press
• Length: 384 Pages
• Weight: 1.10 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 5.3" x 8.6"

Customer Reviews

Uncomfortable reading

Singer writes about many subjects which are potentially disturbing to a complacent, wealthy American (such as myself). I found the essays to be a salutary reminder of my effect on the larger world, and refreshingly down-to-earth. These are not academic essays, but journalistic ones which address ethical matters of concern to every political person with a conscience.

Misunderstanding Singer

I've read many essays from Singer's books, and I can say that many of the reviewers here, I suspect not being formally trained in philosophy, have missed his points in some degree, which leads to their proposed "problems" singer has. First, if let me say this. If Singer has all of the problems that some say he has with the validity of his arguments, he would never have made it to any college, much less Princeton. What I glean from the objections to his arguments is that the readers are not fully understanding his positions, much less the technical but subtle and sound logic in them.One writer writes that "Are we to believe that animals have a since of I or me" and "Does this mean that when an animal hurts, kills or steals from another that she should be charged with assault, murder or theft?" Of course not. Singer would never make such an outlandish assertion nor would even a first year grad student in philosophy. Another reader objects to infanticide, but the argument Singer gives-one on personhood-is sound and valid. It draws its ideas from both Judith Jarvis Thompson's essay and Michael Tooley's essay on that subject, which are both still preeminent. Singer does have some nice explanations to professional arguments on the other side too that neither Thompson nor Tooley address (because they are writing their own arguments). One of my favorite quotes on personhood and infanticide, for example, pithy, but to the point, is this: "Dropping an egg into boiling water is not the same as dropping a live chicken into boiling water" and this "The fact that Price Charles will be the king of England does not mean that he is now the King of England." In other words, infants are not the same as thinking and reasoning beings, and thinking, reasoning, self aware beings are the only beings we ascribe "personhood" to, and persons are the only "things" that get to claim an ethical right to life. If this weren't true, and Singer makes this point, then everything that lives could be said to claim a right to life. This sound reasoning is not as easily dismissed as some think. (And don't hit me on those two simple examples. Read the essays and do your own research.)Last, one reader objects because "if one were to take seriously his premise that we ought to do whatever we can in our power to help those in dire need, no one could ethically spend a dime on anything other than "necessities" (which also raises a question about what constitutes a "necessity" versus a "luxury").First, what he means is that if people are in dire need of no fault of their own, then we should and are morally bound to help them. If that means buying nothing more than necessities, then our moral obligations override luxuries. Think of it this way. Your mother, and I use "mother" here because that brings it right home, has cancer and needs an operation. The only way she can afford it is for you to pay for it. However, you want that new Humvee. Are you morally obligated to pay for your mother's

A True Visionary

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live in the past when human slaves existed? Do you ever question whether you would have the knowledge or insight to realize that you were committing a moral injustice? Well, Professor Singer (he was my professor at Princeton University) is simply a man who has such a vision into the future and is able to understand the cruelties of this world and can explain why they are unjustifiable, regardless of popular opinion. I don't dare to say that his ideas are popular; in fact, 50 mentally handicapped individuals chained themselves to the front gate of Princeton's campus in protest of his appointment. He is a man who argues for the legalization of infanticide, yet has the ability to understand that every American should send a portion of each paycheck to help ease the suffering of starvation in third world countries. I recommend this book because I think Peter Singer can show us how to put an end to the "slave institutions" that we continue to use in this world. I guarantee you one thing; if you bring an open mind to this book, Peter Singer will change your outlook on life. Period.

Excellent and Very Clearly Written

This is a passionate, well-argued, and thought-provoking collection of essays. Unlike most contemporary philosophers, Singer writes clearly and expressively. He completely avoids jargon and the ever-popular use of badly translated French expressions and concepts. I would recommend it very highly to anyone interested in topics such as animal rights, abortion, and euthanasia.

Groundbreaking

The people that have dissed Singer here have distorted his message by oversimplification, the kind that of thing you would expect people from those who have not read him. Singer doesn't want to get rid of retarded people, as one reviewer suggests. Singer bases some of his arguments on the distinction between person-status and mere species memebership, and Singer would definitely rate retarded people as persons. Anyways, Singer is definitely right that the last edifice of pre-Darwinian (or pre-Copernican) thought is the idea of humnan life as intrinsically more estimable than other life, no ifs ands or buts. Singer explores the implications of this fairly, admitting that he doesn't have all the answers (no dogma here) but offering well-thought-out new proposals for action given the world view we'll have to adopt.