|
|
 |
Practical Ethics |
| |
|
|
Author:
Peter Singer
By Cambridge University Press
Average Customer Rating:   
List Price: $28.99
Our Price: $9.98
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product Description
Peter Singer's remarkably clear and comprehensive Practical Ethics has become a classic introduction to applied ethics since its publication in 1979 and has been translated into many languages. For this second edition the author has revised all the existing chapters, added two new ones, and updated the bibliography. He has also added an appendix describing some of the deep misunderstanding of and consequent violent reaction to the book in Germany, Austria and Switzerland where the book has tested the limits of freedom of speech. The focus of the book is the application of ethics to difficult and controversial social questions.
|
|
Some Reviewers Are Not Smart, 2008-05-20
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.
Controversial and Compelling, 2007-03-21
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.
Not only unethical but impractical, too!, 2007-02-12
On 4/9/02, I had the opportunity to attend a presentation by Princeton's Peter Singer in Lawrenceville, NJ. I posed a question, citing two quotations from his "Practical Ethics, 2nd ed.":
1.) "That there is a huge gulf between humans and animals was unquestioned for most of the course of Western civilization....The use of language was another boundary line - but now chimpanzees, gorillas, and an orangutan have learnt Ameslan, the sign language of the deaf" (p.72);
2.) "Are animals self-conscious? There is now solid evidence that some are. Perhaps the most dramatic evidence comes from apes who can communicate with us using a human language" (p.111).
I began: "Professor, I read Practical Ethics two years ago, and I have not eaten a Big Mac since. I also think that you make a sympathetic case for the mistreatment of farm animals. However, I remain an unapologetic speceist. I have worked with deaf people for twenty years and have studied American Sign Language for twenty years. Though I do not believe that language is all that sets humans apart from non-humans, you seem to largely hang your hat on this. I know of no one who knows American Sign Language who maintains that non-humans can sign. Are there studies of which I am unaware?"
Singer began his reply: "Obviously, you are more of an expert in sign language than I." He then went on to acknowledge that the famed ape sign language studies had been criticized for "overinterpreting" what constituted sign language. I then asked, "So, you would no longer maintain that non-humans use Ameslan?" Singer did some fumbling around and replied, "Oh, I didn't say that." He then cited monkeys hitting picture buttons on computers as a possible indication that the critiques of the monkey sign language studies were off base. Huh?
I wanted to next reply: "Well Professor, I can see that it's not logic that you are teaching at Princeton." I deferred for fear of alienating the audience. Nevertheless, I was not allowed to ask additional questions. My on-deck question was: "Professor, it's been reported that you believe that human parents should be allowed to kill their newborns - up to several months. Is that true?" Of course, I already knew that to be true.
Perfect, at least most of it..., 2007-01-12
This book is definitely worth reading for its incredibly convincing arguments regarding moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, bestiality and infanticide.
However, in the last few chapters where Singer attempts to apply simple utilitarian principles to complex world issues, his conclusions become very flawed. For example, he concludes that the most ethical thing for people living in rich countries to do would be to donate 100% of their income beyond what they need for basic survival to help reduce world poverty. However, he completely ignores the fact that this would very quickly cause massive unemployment and general economic collapse (for example, every single entertainment-oriented industry would go bankrupt), which would lead to more overall poverty and suffering. This means that such extreme charity would in theory be less ethical than apathy and non-involvement. In fact, his arguments on euthanasia earlier in the book are (rather disturbingly) more convincing when applied to the poverty issue than his attempted arguments for charity. Of course, he doesn't address any of this.
In conclusion, read the first part of this book for its very enlightening arguments about ethics on a local scale. His positions on these issues are unparalleled in their clarity and defensibility. The chapters on world issues, however, ignore so many possible objections that reading them is only frustrating.
Interesting but deeply flawed, 2006-08-12
Philosophers of all stripes agree that the essence of ethics is that they are universal. For example, the Golden Rule grants other people the same ethical status that you give yourself. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is similar. In 'Practical Ethics' Peter Singer claims that his version of utilitarianism does a better job of capturing the universal nature of ethics than these other approaches. His reasoning begins with the observation that ethics demands considering more than one's own self-interest. Therefore a truly universal system of ethics demands that we give equal consideration to everyone's interests. This principle of equal consideration of interests is the heart of Singer's utilitarian ethics.
1. Two Methods of Refuting a System of Ethics
There are two methods for refuting a system of ethics. The first is to find a logical inconsistency. The second is to appeal to the lack of intrinsic beauty and goodness of an ethical system. As Bertrand Russell observed, Nietzsche had a logically consistent ethics, but they were reprehensible.
Singer's Utilitarianism fails the test for beauty and goodness because it could potentially justify genocide on an ethnic or religious minority. Realize that nothing is intrinsically good or bad according to Singer's principle of the equal consideration of interests. Instead, an action is deemed good or bad based on how many people hold a given interest. If most people have an interest in favor of genocide, then utilitarianism says that genocide is the good. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, utilitarianism is two wolves and a lamb voting about what to have for dinner. Of course, there are utilitarian protections that make genocide more difficult than simply holding a vote. Strongly held interests count for more than weakly held interests (page 21), and the principle of declining marginal utility (page 24) further elevates the interests of the threatened minority group. But declining marginal utility is not a substitute for an unalienable right to life; it still places a finite value on a life, which can then be "outvoted" by the majority. A utilitarian justification of genocide is difficult, but by no means impossible. Even if the interests of a member of the minority group count ten times as much as that of the oppressors, it just means that the minority group must make up less than 10% of the population for genocide to be justified. If the minority group starts to internalize the hatred directed towards them, their interests to keep living will weaken, making genocide even more likely. For those with a background in modal logic, there is a possible world in which Singer's utilitarianism justifies genocide. Singer tacitly recognizes this; on page 94 he explains that the type of utilitarianism that results from maximizing interests is called preference utilitarianism, and on page 99 he says "if we are preference utilitarians we must allow that a desire to go on living can be outweighed by other desires."
Utilitarianism also fails the test for logical consistency because utilitarians cannot accept all of the logical consequences of their beliefs. The demands of rationality are as important in ethics as they are in science or mathematics. If A logically implies B, then belief in A must also imply belief in B (this can be proven in belief logic). Now substitute `utilitarianism' for `A' and `the possibility of your own death by genocide' for `B.' Most utilitarians would accept A but reject B. Few people would willingly consent to their death by genocide.
2. The Nature of Ethics
Failing either one of these two tests should be enough to sink utilitarianism, but there is also a a third objection, which is that Singer misunderstands the nature of ethics. Singer is correct that ethics demands considering more than your own self-interest, but he draws the wrong conclusion when he says that ethics should then be about the consideration of everyone's interests. This forces you to give the same consideration to bad interests, such as wanting to kill members of an ethnic minority, as does to good interests. Instead, ethics are really about right and wrong. Wanting to kill members of an ethnic minority is just as wrong whether one person feels that way, or all of society.
This leaves open the problem of distinguishing between right and wrong. One method of doing this is by appealing to an objective ethical standard such as unalienable rights. This is not likely to appeal to Singer, but the second method is more neutral. Singer accepts that ethics are (1) not about self-interest, (2) universal, and (3) rationality should guide our ethical thought. With this foundation in place, logic can reveal why some actions are wrong and others are right. Consider this analogy; a scientist may believe in a certain theory at one point in time, and then change his mind as new evidence is found. However, logic dictates that he would be irrational if he both supported and rejected the theory at the same time. That same principle applies to ethics. You cannot be rational and believe than an action is both ethical and unethical at the same time.
This is precisely the point being made in the second objection to utilitarianism: the example of genocide shows that supporters of utilitarianism cannot consistently hold their beliefs. In other words, logical consistency does a better job of capturing the universal nature of ethics. In Formal Ethics the logician Harry Gensler formalizes this intuitive view that universal ethics must be logically consistent and then uses it to derive a proof of the Golden Rule (he has a more accessible proof in another book, his Introduction to Logic). There is one caveat, which is that a literal version of the Golden Rule leads to absurdities (such as masochists being granted permission to harm others), but the sophisticated version Gensler proves avoids these problems. The moral of the story (pun intended) is that the Golden Rule captures the essence of the universal nature of ethics better than Singer's principle of equal consideration of interests.
3. Why Be Ethical?
A final objection to 'Pratical Ethics' is that Singer cannot present a reasonable defense of why you should be ethical. Why not just follow your own self-interest? This is a difficult challenge to all atheists. Singer takes a common approach, which is to defend morality on the grounds that being moral is really the best method of advancing your own self-interest. Singer begins with the observation that practical reasoning starts with wanting something (page 322). Societies reflect the majority of their members, so societies "want" what the majority wants. If society "wants" to be ethical, then it can reward people for being ethical with social approval (page 323). Thus being ethical advances your self-interest (page 326).
There are several problems with using self-interest as a justification for ethics. The first is that, as Singer concedes on page 335, "ethically indefensible behavior is not always irrational." In other words, ethics does not always coincide with self-interests. The second problem is that Singer's concept of ethics no longer makes any sense. In the opening chapter Singer claims that the essence of ethics is that it demands considering more than your own self-interest, but in the closing chapter he says that the only reason to be ethical is to advance your self-interest. This realization means that ethics is not *really* about "equal consideration of interests" but rather an elaborate hoop to jump through in order to get a pat on the back from society. A third problem with Singer's justification is how it would influence the process of switching from one system of ethics to another. If Singer is correct, then everyone's goal would be to make things that they like ethical, and to make things that they do not like unethical. That way they can easily get society's pat on the back without sacrifice. This reduces ethics to a system of relativism and/or emotivism (an ethical system in which "X is good" means "I like X"). Singer capably defeats both of those ethical systems early in the book, and his own ethics in the process.
Other books that utilitarian critics might enjoy are Introduction to Logic by Harry Gensler. It is hard work but doable. As an added bonus, it applies logical principles to ethics and concludes with a formal proof of the Golden Rule. Be sure to download the logicola software that goes with the book. Moral Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach by David Oderberg is a a defense of natural rights ethics against utilitarianism. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by JP Moreland is hands down the best, and most rigorous, introduction to philosophy that I've seen.
|
|
Binding: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 170
EAN: 9780521439718
ISBN: 052143971X
Label: Cambridge University Press
Manufacturer: Cambridge University Press
Number Of Items: 1
Number Of Pages: 411
Publication Date: 1999-01-30
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Studio: Cambridge University Press |
|
