Peter Singer's remarkably clear and comprehensive Practical Ethics has become a classic introduction to applied ethics since its publication in 197...
read full description
reviews
Jul 13, 2010
Worthless
rated it: 
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers.
To view it, click here
0 comments
like
(2 people liked it)
May 26, 2009
Nick
rated it: 
Read down in Savannah back in 2002; I picked up an archival copy back in 2004. Lots of good thinking here, but Singer's *way* too quick to consider something "conclusively demonstrated." I found his animal rights doctrine a particularly grotesque pill to swallow, and his arguments regarding abortion rather slipshod reasoning (although not so much as the roe v wade decision itself) -- I'm staunchly pro-choice, but certainly not due to Singer-style arguments. For that matter, the 700,000
More...
0 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
May 12, 2010
Ted
rated it:
Re-read last month after a debate with my family left me grasping at straws, and wishing I had taken better notes during Senior year.
Singer's unrelenting application of the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests drives an incredibly robust, thoughtful, and rational approach to the study of Moral Philosophy.
Singer's voice comes through loud and clear, and except for a few short, highly technical diversions, this book is extremely readable from cover to cover. Like h More...
Singer's unrelenting application of the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests drives an incredibly robust, thoughtful, and rational approach to the study of Moral Philosophy.
Singer's voice comes through loud and clear, and except for a few short, highly technical diversions, this book is extremely readable from cover to cover. Like h More...
Jul 27, 2011
Lynette
rated it:
easy and accessible (if slightly offensive) moral philosophy. singer's explication of his particular brand of preference utilitarianism relies too heavily on ad hoc devices designed to bridge the gap between "top down" normative approaches and more palatable moral intuitions (ironic, given his express rejection of intuitive judgements). a few novel ideas here and there, but all in all not a very compelling read. can get pretty repetitive, but nevertheless it's good to have a champion o
More...
7 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
Dec 26, 2011
Alejandro
rated it:
Peter Singer es un filósofo australiano conocido por sus argumentos a favor de los derechos de los animales.
Si bien el grueso del libro tiene que ver con argumentos a favor de la vida, sea humana o animal, cuando leí este libro hace casi una década, los capítulos que más me gustaron fueron justamente los que trataron otros temas: "La igualdad y sus implicaciones" (¿qué significa igualdad entre las personas?), "Ricos y pobres" (sobre la obligación de los ricos a ayu More...
Si bien el grueso del libro tiene que ver con argumentos a favor de la vida, sea humana o animal, cuando leí este libro hace casi una década, los capítulos que más me gustaron fueron justamente los que trataron otros temas: "La igualdad y sus implicaciones" (¿qué significa igualdad entre las personas?), "Ricos y pobres" (sobre la obligación de los ricos a ayu More...
May 12, 2010
Beggs
rated it:
Practical Ethics is the one book I know that can, without fail start a heated argument in any company. You just open to any page read a paragraph out loud. Instant debate.
Peter Singer makes a habit of bait-and-switching the reader. Starting with what (usually) sound like simple, easy to agree with axioms he builds up easy to follow example. Then proceeds to explain why, if you agree with the example, which most people do, you have agreed to something that most people would find u More...
Peter Singer makes a habit of bait-and-switching the reader. Starting with what (usually) sound like simple, easy to agree with axioms he builds up easy to follow example. Then proceeds to explain why, if you agree with the example, which most people do, you have agreed to something that most people would find u More...
Dec 12, 2011
John
rated it: 
I liked the chapter "Why Act Morally?" the best. It delved into some interesting but unresolved problems of the foundations of ethics, discussing the tension between self-interest and universality, and the difficult example of happy psychopaths. However, his tentative conclusion that the justification for ethics is that it makes you happier isn't entirely convincing. How odd that the branch of philosophy that's among the closest to our daily experience, ethics, is an area that's still
More...
0 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
Sep 10, 2009
I'd like to get this from the library and read it. I first encountered Singer as someone arguing for the ethicality of increased rights for animals, which led me to view him with a positive light. However, I more recently discovered that he has argued the the lives of people with disabilities are "worth less" than those of the abled, which is disgusting. And, from the justifications I've read, also pretty stupidly argued.
May 27, 2009
Nikki
rated it:
Interesting, not that I agree with all of it. Pretty easy to read, thankfully, and clear.
Edit on reread: I can understand why this book gets some pretty extreme reactions, now I've read it straight through like this. His view of ethics builds up throughout the book, too, so if you don't read all of it, if you read some of it out of context, then he sounds pretty awful.
It also should, if you're properly thinking about it, make you wonder why our society -- globally -- is t More...
Edit on reread: I can understand why this book gets some pretty extreme reactions, now I've read it straight through like this. His view of ethics builds up throughout the book, too, so if you don't read all of it, if you read some of it out of context, then he sounds pretty awful.
It also should, if you're properly thinking about it, make you wonder why our society -- globally -- is t More...
0 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
Apr 10, 2009
Victoria
rated it:
A lot of his ideas are commonsensical. I like a lot of them - particularly his perspective on Euthanasia. And a lot of his animal rights sections. It is accessible and readable too, broken down into sections so you can pick and choose the topics you wish to read about. Worth a read if you are interested in moral philosophy.
Aug 31, 2009
Q
rated it:
I read this book some time ago but am adding it only now because I came across a co-worker's website in which they write about abortion.
Initially published 1979, this book is one of my favorite and most influential on my philosophy. It is amazing -- IMHO -- how much Singer is able to address, and well, in one book.
Initially published 1979, this book is one of my favorite and most influential on my philosophy. It is amazing -- IMHO -- how much Singer is able to address, and well, in one book.
Aug 07, 2011
Nick
rated it:
More important than any other book you might care to read. Though I don't agree entirely with the interest-utilitarian basis of his ethics, it's more a matter of definitions, and all of his conclusions seem water tight from where I stand. This man will change your life.
0 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
Jul 26, 2010
Jscorse
rated it:
There are things about Singer that I don't like and he has done a disservice to the cause at time for his extremism, but this presents a serious attempt at a moral calculus without religion- makes you think.
Nov 28, 2010
Lefty
rated it:
I've never read anything quite so ineresting. If you want to give your brain a philosophical work-out, this is great. Very easy to read, I do believe anybody could read and enjoy this.
Aug 12, 2011
Ki
rated it:
A fearless and comprehensive look at the primary ethical dilemmas of our time. Singer is opinionated but razor sharp, original yet logical. Guaranteed to provoke discussion.
Jan 10, 2011
Arturo
rated it:
Bastante bueno, y muy fiel a lo que promete su título. Los argumentos de Singer descansan más en estadísticas y datos duros que en sutiles distinciones filosóficas.
Feb 18, 2009
Dave
rated it:
This book should be required reading. A powerful mind addressing serious issues, in a comprehensible, practical way. Seriously, required reading.
Jul 28, 2009
Shane
rated it:
If you are at all interested in the philosophy of ethics, this is an excellent up to date read. Singer has a very rare gift. He is able to not only think through matters of ethics in a careful and theoretical way (something rare in and of itself) but is able to apply that theory to the real world (even more rare) and then explain it all in language that anyone who has no previous experience with philosophy can understand. A near perfect text on the subject.
I am not myself a utilit More...
I am not myself a utilit More...
Jan 21, 2010
Gordan
rated it:
Ausführliche Bewertung wird folgen, so ich Zeit dazu finde.
Prinzipiell argumentativ Sauber, konsequent und beipflichtenswürdig. Zum Ende hin verliert Singer an Elan und Muse, die Struktur wird unsauberer und Konsequenzen werden weniger klar.
... Später mehr dazu
Prinzipiell argumentativ Sauber, konsequent und beipflichtenswürdig. Zum Ende hin verliert Singer an Elan und Muse, die Struktur wird unsauberer und Konsequenzen werden weniger klar.
... Später mehr dazu
Apr 29, 2011
Mark
rated it:
Here at the outset I'm just making notes
How is consistency important? So much of life is mathematical, calculated, and thus not discertionary! Somehow I want ethics to be, not ineffable or unjudgable, but at least a little bit variegated, artistic; a matter of personal taste and pride. When he begins with consistency as a (n implicit) requirement, I shudder
How is consistency important? So much of life is mathematical, calculated, and thus not discertionary! Somehow I want ethics to be, not ineffable or unjudgable, but at least a little bit variegated, artistic; a matter of personal taste and pride. When he begins with consistency as a (n implicit) requirement, I shudder
Oct 19, 2011
Rob
rated it: 
Hey Pete, you know what would be great? If you wouldn't phrase your defense of equality as "Well, women and blacks may be dumber than us white guys, but we should treat them equally anyways." kthnx.
This is the same combination of smug intellectual remove and garbled popular science that reminds me why I stopped hanging out with philosophy majors.
This is the same combination of smug intellectual remove and garbled popular science that reminds me why I stopped hanging out with philosophy majors.
Jul 17, 2008
Jonathan
rated it:
I disagree with his basic premise, but he does a really good job of evaluating ethical decisions based on that premise. Essential for understanding ethical decisions from non-religious perspectives.
Sep 21, 2008
Melinda
rated it:
Loved this book! You really need an open mind to understand his extreme ideas of ethics and ideas, but very well written and a jump start to individualized thinking
Sep 25, 2007
jools
rated it:
Commonsense look at ethics in readable language. Not exactly one to pick up for fun, but not bad nonetheless.
Sep 26, 2011
Yupa
rated it:
«È un errore assumere che la legge debba sempre far osservare la morale» (p.115)
Jul 01, 2008
Gsansom
rated it:
I think this modern moral philosopher is neither.... moral nor a philosopher...
Feb 09, 2012
