Order from a Major Online Bookstore
Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine
Save Your Time And Money
| AnyBook4Less.com | Order from a Major Online Bookstore |
|
| Home | Store List | FAQ | Contact Us | | ||
| Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine Save Your Time And Money |
||
 |
Title: Practical Ethics by Peter Singer ISBN: 0-521-43971-X Publisher: Cambridge University Press Pub. Date: 29 January, 1993 Format: Paperback Volumes: 1 List Price(USD): $22.00 |
Average Customer Rating: 3.57 (30 reviews)
Rating: 5
Summary: Rebuttal of Jack by Don of Tallahassee
Comment: Jack states that it is Prof. Peter Singer's view that: "intelligence is no basis for determining ethical stature, that, for instance, the lives of humans are not worth more than the lives of animals simply because they are more intelligence (sic)..."
Not true. Instead Singer evaluates the value of a life based on the being's (including non-human sentient animals) own desire about continuing to live, its rationality and self-awareness over time and between places, and interestingly on its ability to plan and have desires for the future.
As such, Singer wites in the Chapter "What's Wrong With Killing?" that: "For preference utilitarians, taking the life of a person will normally be worse than taking the life of some other being, since people are highly future-orientated in their preferences."
Singer is controversial even when interpreted correctly, but he is exceptionally consistant, and I've found that - over 25 years from when I was at Monash Uni - in each case where I've initially disagreed with his analysis, eventually I've discovered that it was my own reasoning that was flawed.
A final point: one of Singer's basic beliefs is that we are not only responsible for what we do, but for what we could have prevented from happening, e.g. thousands of children suffering and dying weekly in developing nations due to inexpensively preventable causes.
Is it that that position is more difficult to take cheap shots at, so it is not much discussed by Singer critics? Or is it that these critics do not want to be distracted by some nagging moral responsibility as they shop for the latest in designer clothes, or a bigger SUV?
Tikkun olam
Don A.
Rating: 1
Summary: Utilitarianism - A Pathological Exhibit
Comment: The first thing I recommend is that before reading "Practical Ethics", make sure you're acquainted with the principles of critical reading as discussed by Mortimer Adler in his brilliant "How To Read A Book".
Then turn for example to pages 12 and 13 of "Practical Ethics" and apply the principles of logic as discussed by Adler. Singer claims that the universal aspect of ethics (namely, that we make judgements from a universal, not a self-oriented, point of view) provides a persuasive reason for taking a utilitarian position. OK. Get ready to be strictly logical, and read his argument. Do you agree he has made the case?
Here is how it runs ( I summarise ):
1.Suppose the universal position is true.
2.It follows that my own interests as such cannot count for more than the interests of others.
3.Thus I must consider how to maximise the interests of all, equally considered.(2nd sentence, Para 2., p.13.)
4.Thus the universal principle inclines towards a utilitarian position.
My question: Neither 1 nor 2 implies 3. Nor do 1 and 2 in combination imply 3. At most 1 and 2 imply that IF "interests ought to be maximised" (the utilitarian doctrine or at least one variation thereof) is true, one must equally consider the interests of all. But Singer neglects to prove that "interests ought to be maximised" here. And nowhere else in his book does he establish it! Therefore Singer's "proof" is guilty of a common logical fallacy: it assumes (via 3) what has to be proved (4)
Since his entire argument is based on the utilitarian principle, and he fails to derive this successfully, his project is incomplete at the most critical point - its foundation. I know this sounds incredible, considering the esteem in which Singer is held. (Just read the reviews on the back cover.) But how can people blithely pass over such a sloppy piece of reasoning?
There are dozens of other examples of poor thinking in this book. Here's one more that needs discussion. If it's OK to kill babies and the pre-conscious in general because they're just that - not conscious, interest-generating beings - why is it not OK to kill people who are asleep or in comas? Singer replies (pp98,99) that older people asleep or unconscious have once had interests and desires, that and these continue to exist through sleep or inconsciousness. Well, they do and they don't. My ability to drive a car continues to exist while I'm asleep in this sense: if I wake up, I can drive a car. Sleep doesn't extinguish forever my ability to drive a car when I'm awake. But while I'm asleep I can't drive a car. The same rule applies to our having of interests or desires: namely, sleep doesn't extinguish our ability to revive acquired interests when we are awake, but while asleep we are no more "here and now interest or desire - having beings" than we are "beings who here and now can drive a car". The "having of interests" while asleep is not the same thing as the "having of interests" while awake and it is simply disingenuous to imply otherwise. And this point is crucial: Since while asleep I don't "have interests" in the relevant sense - I can't be satisfied by meeting desires or fulfill interests while asleep - it follows I'm in the same position in this respect as an unborn or young baby. Like me, the baby will at some future point acquire interests - only for her it will be for the first time. So why should my dormant interests count, but not the baby's latent interests?
Singer tries to get out of this by observing that even when awake sometimes we are not conscious of some desires until we advert to them.(See pp. 98,99.) Nevertheless, he says, those desires "remain a part of us". True, but irrelevant. Remember: the whole point of utilitarianism is to maximise interests. But interests can only be "met" while they are consciously held.[How grateful would we be if someone were to show us that long desired video while we were asleep?] How then, can interests - which because they are not consciously held are not able to be maximised - count in the consequentialist's calculus?
Singer might reply "Well, you could make these interests count as maximizable by for example reminding this person of her interests or by waking that person up". Sure you could. But are you obliged to? If not, then so what? If so, why? This could only imply that the goal of utilitarians not only to maximize extant (maximizable) interests, but to increase where possible the number of maximizable interests. But if so, are we not obliged not only to awaken dormant interests but also to allow this newborn baby to live so that it can eventually generate a heap of maximizable interests? We thus return to the original question: if babies, why not the sleeping?
The most frightening thing about Singer's book and doctrine is its uncritical reception by otherwise intelligent people. Sure, the man writes smoothly and comes across in print and on air as a genial chap. And for all I know, he may be sincere. Put that aside. These are life or death matters he is pronouncing upon. For heaven's sake, engage your critical faculties. I'm sure it won't take much of a work out before you agree with me that in this nice man's "ethic", mankind has edged one step closer to the abyss.
If you're still having trouble spotting the errors in Singer's book, get a hold of "Moral Theory" and other works by David S. Oderberg.
Rating: 5
Summary: A book Useful for Human Rights Academicians also!
Comment: Peter Singer's work "Practical Ethics" is very useful for those interested in Civil Rights or Human Rights. Chapters on 'Equality', 'Whats wrong with killing?', 'Environment' and 'Why act morally' should not be missed by anyone.
 |
Title: Rethinking Life and Death : The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics by Peter Singer ISBN: 0312144016 Publisher: St. Martin's Press Pub. Date: 15 April, 1996 List Price(USD): $14.95 |
 |
Title: How Are We to Live?: Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest by Peter Singer ISBN: 0879759666 Publisher: Prometheus Books Pub. Date: May, 1995 List Price(USD): $22.00 |
 |
Title: Writings on an Ethical Life by Peter Singer ISBN: 0060007443 Publisher: Ecco Pub. Date: 18 September, 2001 List Price(USD): $15.00 |
 |
Title: Animal Liberation by Peter Singer ISBN: 0060011572 Publisher: Ecco Pub. Date: 18 December, 2001 List Price(USD): $14.95 |
 |
Title: A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation by Peter Singer ISBN: 0300083238 Publisher: Yale Univ Pr Pub. Date: April, 2000 List Price(USD): $12.00 |
Thank you for visiting www.AnyBook4Less.com and enjoy your savings!
Copyright� 2001-2021 Send your comments
