alonovo.com (beta 2.0)

Removing our paleochristian baggage for a clearer view of our ethical problems 2010-08-29

Reviewer: cassdog

Peter Singer delves in to some of the most controversial and relevant ethical dilemmas in our day with a strong clarity and simplicity of prose. His writing style is that of a man who tinkers with ideas, going down a path to see what comes out. The reader will find that when you follow this path, the results can be fascinating, unsettling and sometimes contradictory. For example, his unassailable logic leads him to presume that it is less just to kill an animal for meat than it is to kill a fetus. Many critics have responded to these contradictions but his logic as outlined in this book is difficult to deny. Because he focuses on 'practical ethics' he discusses only topics on which there is still honest debate, or in which there are emerging ethical problems such as euthanasia and abortion. I bought this book to read the words of an intelligent philosopher and possibly have a better justification for my 'political views' on these topics but I never though they would directly apply to me (except the meat-eating portions). But shortly after reading this book I was faced with some ethical problems brought on by modern advancements in medical technology. The thought-processes that this book stimulated in my mind allowed me to more clearly make some important decisions that one doesn't face in everyday life without worrying about meaningless objections. That is one of the biggest compliments that a book like this can generate, is that is useful. This book clearly dismantles some of the historical baggage we have in our decision making based on debunked ways of looking at the world. It is amazing that in our modern, educated world we haven't moved past these biases towards things that are unsettling, or icky for no logical reason. I include myself in that previous sentence. More specifically, the author removes the barriers towards general and widespread acceptance of culturally sensitive topics like euthanasia and abortion. When you remove the debunked religious notion of a soul, then some of the main drivers of ethics are suffering and consciousness. The author uses utilitarian philosophical techniques to analyze the suffering related to our modern decision-making. This weighting of suffering and level of consciousness is then used to aid in decision making. For instance, this is how the author concludes that it is less just to kill an animal for meat than a fetus because of the animals greater level of consciousness and possibility of suffering. While this finding may be surprising it is likely true that fetuses don't have a high level of consciousness. This is a topic that I found myself adjusting my views slightly on due to this book although I considered legalization of euthanasia a no-brainer before reading this book. While I didn't agree with the authors conclusions for every topic within the book, I realize that many of the critics are not seriously analyzing his conclusions and are often quote-mining things out of context. There is enough stuff in this book that is controversial to paleo-christians that they don't need to quote infanticide passages out of context to claim Mr Singer is a nazi. Please engage him on the issues, your preliterate shepherding worldview has enough contrast with this mans advanced thinking without lying for Jesus.

Practical Ethics 2010-04-26

Reviewer: The Customer

A well-rounded book offering arguments from multiple sides. While Peter Singer's philosophies are sometimes quite flawed, I believe, they spark interesting discussions.

Some Reviewers Are Not Smart 2008-05-20

Reviewer: Dizaat

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

Reviewer: Neal Stanifer

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

Reviewer: Joseph P. Tevington

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.