More about Peter Singer and utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that determines the morality of an action by the effects that it has. The more an action promotes the general wellbeing the better it is morally. Now it’s pretty easy to construct scenarios where the moral utilitarian solution to a problem is intuitively hugely immoral. However other ethical frameworks don’t always fair much better when subjected to hypothetical scenarios.
Anyway, Peter Singer follows his ethical framework to some shocking conclusions. I don’t think shocking conclusions should count against him, in fact I think it is very important not to be afraid to argue shocking conclusions, they may not always seem shocking. Singer notes that philosophers often become the most sophisticated defenders of what we already believe in. That can make philosophers dangerous rather than enlightening if it helps men feel comfortable in their role as oppressors (of woman or black people etc). My favorite example of this kind of complacency happened around 200 years ago. Mary Wollstonecraft published her entirely sensible ‘A vindication of the rights of women’, few today would argue the basic point of the book but an eminent Cambridge philosopher replied with a sarcastic paper called ‘A vindication of the rights of brutes’. He did not trouble to engage with the arguments because they were so obviously absurd. We think thinkers like Singer to battle that kind of reckless complacency. Singer suggests narrowing the moral gap between human and non-human animals, some find this shocking because they think it suggests that we should treat humans like animals are treated. But note that Singer suggests that we not eat animals, not that we should start farming humans, so that is exactly the wrong way round.
So the moral is; don’t dismiss Singer, and as I plan to argue further, supporting animal rights does not depend on one being a utilitarian.
Here is an excellent debate on one of Singers shocking positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment