What do you think?
Rate this book
Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics
The new commandments according to Rethinking Life and Death .
--If you must take human life, take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions.
--All human life is not of equal worth; treat beings in accordance to the ethical situation at hand.
--Respect a person's desire to live or die.
A profound and provocative work, Rethinking Life and Death , in the tradition of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World , examines the ethical dilemmas that confront us as we near the twenty-first century.
--If you must take human life, take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions.
--All human life is not of equal worth; treat beings in accordance to the ethical situation at hand.
--Respect a person's desire to live or die.
A profound and provocative work, Rethinking Life and Death , in the tradition of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World , examines the ethical dilemmas that confront us as we near the twenty-first century.
272 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1995
20 people are currently reading
977 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
182 books10.5k followersPeter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
November 30, 2023
Honestly I love this guy. Just can't get enough lol. Consistent secularism is just the best, it's like a performance art project; world-famous philosopher at Princeton straight up telling disabled ladies in wheelchairs to their faces that they should have been euthanized as infants . . . he's asked "did you really mean to say that it's cool for people to have sex with dolphins?" and he's like "yeah, no, that's exactly what I said." He just gives zero f****.
He's also a super chill guy, so you can't even say that he's being intentionally provocative or whatever; he's just, like, calmly following the consequences of the principles of late-stage liberalism. As Nietzsche figured out 150 years ago (and MacIntyre re-emphasized 50 years ago): if we're just meat, then why try to -- indeed, how can you? -- maintain all those curious ideas regarding human dignity, Judeo-Christian morality, etc.? If we're just meat, then all the principles regarding, say, avoiding sex with animals, or not murdering sick people, etc., are simply void; if you're a consistent materialist, then there's no such thing as human 'nature' or human dignity, and the best/only good thing that you can do for animals is reduce suffering, and we're just animals, so morality is = reduce suffering.
It reminds me of Slate feminists who come right out and say: "Yeah, abortion is killing a baby, but that's totally fine; murdering babies is essential for this whole thing to work." They're cheerful about it! Just the best lol.
He's also a super chill guy, so you can't even say that he's being intentionally provocative or whatever; he's just, like, calmly following the consequences of the principles of late-stage liberalism. As Nietzsche figured out 150 years ago (and MacIntyre re-emphasized 50 years ago): if we're just meat, then why try to -- indeed, how can you? -- maintain all those curious ideas regarding human dignity, Judeo-Christian morality, etc.? If we're just meat, then all the principles regarding, say, avoiding sex with animals, or not murdering sick people, etc., are simply void; if you're a consistent materialist, then there's no such thing as human 'nature' or human dignity, and the best/only good thing that you can do for animals is reduce suffering, and we're just animals, so morality is = reduce suffering.
It reminds me of Slate feminists who come right out and say: "Yeah, abortion is killing a baby, but that's totally fine; murdering babies is essential for this whole thing to work." They're cheerful about it! Just the best lol.
August 31, 2014
Occasionally, I like to read books that I know I will disagree with. I feel like the process of reading arguments that I disagree with expands my mind. This is one of those books. Surprisingly, I agreed with more than I thought I would. Ultimately, I disagreed with his conclusions, but there were plenty of arguments I agreed with along the way.
I really did feel like this book expanded my mind. I'll first discuss some of the ways in which I felt this book helped me do that, and then I'll discuss some of the ways that I fundamentally disagreed.
First, I felt like I learned a lot. I will openly admit that I have almost zero knowledge in medical related fields. I enjoyed learning a lot in those arenas. For example, I was completely unaware that most organ donations are actually taken from a body where the heart is still beating. In this sense, the body is still alive, even though the brain is dead.
I was also unaware that brain death is considered legal death in many countries. That is why it is legal for doctors to take organs from a still living body, because though the body lives, the individual is legally dead.
Probably the thing I enjoyed most about this book was going through the mental exercise of thinking about certain ethical situations. One that was particularly powerful was a story of two babies born approximately the same time. One was born with no brain, and was doomed to die within a week. The other was born with a bad heart and was doomed to die within a week. In this real life situation, both babies died. The ethical question is, could it be considered moral to take the heart from the baby with no brain and give it to the other baby? The baby with no brain will never achieve consciousness either way. If we do nothing, they both die. However, there is potential to save one of them.
I actually agreed with the author on that case. I felt like it wouldn't be murder to allow a child that was already dying to donate the heart (obviously you would need the consent of the parents).
However, that's where my views begin to diverge from the views of the author. The author then used that to point out that a person cannot believe in the sanctity of life while still allowing for organ donors. The argument goes that you are allowing the doctor to end one life to preserve another.
I completely disagree with that argument. To me, a belief in the sanctity of life is simply a belief that human life is sacred. However, if you believe that life is sacred, wouldn't it make sense to choose to preserve one life rather than to sacrifice both lives? I certainly would not condemn someone who would want to preserve the life of the child without a brain for as long as possible. But, I don't think that someone who would allow for a doctor to perform the transplant is throwing away a belief in the sanctity of life.
The author did point to a Catholic doctrine that essentially says that you can never end a human life under any circumstances. I suppose this situation would violate that particular doctrinal wording, but I'm not Catholic so I don't know if that's particularly how they word it. What I do know is that my study of the Bible shows that even the Lord himself commanded life to be taken at times.
Obviously, in my personal life, it's pretty safe to say that I will never take a human life. I'm not likely to counter exceptions to that rule. But, a doctor who has to make life and death decisions every day is clearly going to have to make hard decisions.
This book was all about those hard decisions. It clearly showed that the line between life and death is fuzzier than we may think. It definitely showed that there are ethical situations which were unclear. I enjoyed learning about those situations, and I enjoyed the logical way in which the book examined them. However, the conclusion the book came to was essentially that because there are hard questions, we need to throw away the ethics that we've always used in the past. That seems like overkill to me.
The book was very logical. It took very logical steps, and walked through each argument. I absolutely loved that. But logic alone, without a moral ethic, can turn you into a monster. Let me explain:
In the book he explains that a poll was given where 40% of respondents agreed with 3 separate statements.
1. Abortion is morally permissible after 24 weeks if the fetus is abnormal.
2. There is no moral difference between the abortion of a fetus and the active termination of the life of a newborn infant when both have the same gestational age and suffer from the same defects.
3. There are no circumstances in which it is morally permissible to take active steps to terminate the life of an infant with severe defects.
He points out that you can't logically believe in all 3. If it's okay to terminate a baby in the womb and there is no difference between a baby in the womb and a baby after birth, then it should be just as okay to kill the child after birth.
Of course, my disagreement is with the first statement. The truth is that most people choose to have illogical beliefs because they know that following their reasoning to its logical end makes them a monster. This author embraces the monster, but at least he's logically consistent.
Later in the book he says, "Human babies are not self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." and a few pages later, "for reasons we have already discusses, in regarding a newborn infant as not having the same right to life as a person, the cultures that practised infanticide were on solid ground."
Yes, if logic is decoupled from morality, it becomes very easy to promote infanticide. Interestingly, his proposal is that infanticide should be legal for a mere 28 days after birth. He acknowledges that that is arbitrary, and gives no real reasoning for such an arbitrary day. If he were truly to follow his logic to its end, I suspect he would have to tolerate the termination of the child until its 3rd or 4th year. But even this author could not stomach the logical and monstrous ends to his own arguments.
Ultimately, I did enjoy reading this book. I enjoyed the mental exercise that pondering the hard questions brings. However, at the same time this book terrified me. Most proponents of abortion, euthanasia, or animal rights (all topics discussed in this book) have a limit to the beliefs they are willing to put out there. Their limits often make them illogical, but it keeps them within some sort of a moral boundary. It is truly terrifying the level of horror that our society could reach if people were willing to cast off the shackles of morality in favor of the "enlightened" logic of Peter Singer's new ethics.
I really did feel like this book expanded my mind. I'll first discuss some of the ways in which I felt this book helped me do that, and then I'll discuss some of the ways that I fundamentally disagreed.
First, I felt like I learned a lot. I will openly admit that I have almost zero knowledge in medical related fields. I enjoyed learning a lot in those arenas. For example, I was completely unaware that most organ donations are actually taken from a body where the heart is still beating. In this sense, the body is still alive, even though the brain is dead.
I was also unaware that brain death is considered legal death in many countries. That is why it is legal for doctors to take organs from a still living body, because though the body lives, the individual is legally dead.
Probably the thing I enjoyed most about this book was going through the mental exercise of thinking about certain ethical situations. One that was particularly powerful was a story of two babies born approximately the same time. One was born with no brain, and was doomed to die within a week. The other was born with a bad heart and was doomed to die within a week. In this real life situation, both babies died. The ethical question is, could it be considered moral to take the heart from the baby with no brain and give it to the other baby? The baby with no brain will never achieve consciousness either way. If we do nothing, they both die. However, there is potential to save one of them.
I actually agreed with the author on that case. I felt like it wouldn't be murder to allow a child that was already dying to donate the heart (obviously you would need the consent of the parents).
However, that's where my views begin to diverge from the views of the author. The author then used that to point out that a person cannot believe in the sanctity of life while still allowing for organ donors. The argument goes that you are allowing the doctor to end one life to preserve another.
I completely disagree with that argument. To me, a belief in the sanctity of life is simply a belief that human life is sacred. However, if you believe that life is sacred, wouldn't it make sense to choose to preserve one life rather than to sacrifice both lives? I certainly would not condemn someone who would want to preserve the life of the child without a brain for as long as possible. But, I don't think that someone who would allow for a doctor to perform the transplant is throwing away a belief in the sanctity of life.
The author did point to a Catholic doctrine that essentially says that you can never end a human life under any circumstances. I suppose this situation would violate that particular doctrinal wording, but I'm not Catholic so I don't know if that's particularly how they word it. What I do know is that my study of the Bible shows that even the Lord himself commanded life to be taken at times.
Obviously, in my personal life, it's pretty safe to say that I will never take a human life. I'm not likely to counter exceptions to that rule. But, a doctor who has to make life and death decisions every day is clearly going to have to make hard decisions.
This book was all about those hard decisions. It clearly showed that the line between life and death is fuzzier than we may think. It definitely showed that there are ethical situations which were unclear. I enjoyed learning about those situations, and I enjoyed the logical way in which the book examined them. However, the conclusion the book came to was essentially that because there are hard questions, we need to throw away the ethics that we've always used in the past. That seems like overkill to me.
The book was very logical. It took very logical steps, and walked through each argument. I absolutely loved that. But logic alone, without a moral ethic, can turn you into a monster. Let me explain:
In the book he explains that a poll was given where 40% of respondents agreed with 3 separate statements.
1. Abortion is morally permissible after 24 weeks if the fetus is abnormal.
2. There is no moral difference between the abortion of a fetus and the active termination of the life of a newborn infant when both have the same gestational age and suffer from the same defects.
3. There are no circumstances in which it is morally permissible to take active steps to terminate the life of an infant with severe defects.
He points out that you can't logically believe in all 3. If it's okay to terminate a baby in the womb and there is no difference between a baby in the womb and a baby after birth, then it should be just as okay to kill the child after birth.
Of course, my disagreement is with the first statement. The truth is that most people choose to have illogical beliefs because they know that following their reasoning to its logical end makes them a monster. This author embraces the monster, but at least he's logically consistent.
Later in the book he says, "Human babies are not self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." and a few pages later, "for reasons we have already discusses, in regarding a newborn infant as not having the same right to life as a person, the cultures that practised infanticide were on solid ground."
Yes, if logic is decoupled from morality, it becomes very easy to promote infanticide. Interestingly, his proposal is that infanticide should be legal for a mere 28 days after birth. He acknowledges that that is arbitrary, and gives no real reasoning for such an arbitrary day. If he were truly to follow his logic to its end, I suspect he would have to tolerate the termination of the child until its 3rd or 4th year. But even this author could not stomach the logical and monstrous ends to his own arguments.
Ultimately, I did enjoy reading this book. I enjoyed the mental exercise that pondering the hard questions brings. However, at the same time this book terrified me. Most proponents of abortion, euthanasia, or animal rights (all topics discussed in this book) have a limit to the beliefs they are willing to put out there. Their limits often make them illogical, but it keeps them within some sort of a moral boundary. It is truly terrifying the level of horror that our society could reach if people were willing to cast off the shackles of morality in favor of the "enlightened" logic of Peter Singer's new ethics.
November 19, 2023
A new ethical approach:
“If we think of the embryo as an individual from con-ception- let's call her Marion- then what happens to Marion is the embryo splits? Are the newly formed twins Marion and a new twin, say, Ruth? Or are they two new twins, say, Ruth and Esther?
Both answers give rise to paradoxes. If Marion still exists, which one of the twins is she? There is no basis for saying that one of them is more closely linked to the original Marion than the other. But if neither of the new twins is Marion, what has happened to her? Has she vanished? Should we regret the loss of a human individual, as I would regret the disappearance of one of my daughters, even if she were replaced by two others? Ford concluded that as long as twinning is still a possibility, the cluster of cells does not constitute an individual organism. Therefore the life of a human individual does not begin at conception, but about fourteen days later, when the possibility of twinning is lost. His view has not been endorsed by any official church body, but it has also not been condemned.”
“If we think of the embryo as an individual from con-ception- let's call her Marion- then what happens to Marion is the embryo splits? Are the newly formed twins Marion and a new twin, say, Ruth? Or are they two new twins, say, Ruth and Esther?
Both answers give rise to paradoxes. If Marion still exists, which one of the twins is she? There is no basis for saying that one of them is more closely linked to the original Marion than the other. But if neither of the new twins is Marion, what has happened to her? Has she vanished? Should we regret the loss of a human individual, as I would regret the disappearance of one of my daughters, even if she were replaced by two others? Ford concluded that as long as twinning is still a possibility, the cluster of cells does not constitute an individual organism. Therefore the life of a human individual does not begin at conception, but about fourteen days later, when the possibility of twinning is lost. His view has not been endorsed by any official church body, but it has also not been condemned.”
April 7, 2023
This is a great introduction and summary of Singer's bioethics. He discusses his opinions on abortion, assisted suicide, the definition of death, personhood, and disability.
Singer thinks bioethics is torn between two camps: one that focuses on the quality of life, and the other that focuses on the sanctity of all life, regardless of quality. People who believe in the quality of life believe that the quality of life is relevant in making moral decisions. So, a person who is suffering can request assisted suicide, and a fetus that cannot think or feel doesn't have moral weight. In contrast, the sanctity of life group thinks all life has inherent value and dignity regardless of the quality of life. It doesn't matter if a fetus can think or feel, and it doesn't matter if a terminally ill person is suffering; all life has value, and it's always categorically wrong to take a life. Singer (of course) is on the quality of life side.
No spoilers, but Singer is amazing at building his argument and by the end, I largely agreed with him. I recommend reading this if you're interested in medicine, abortion or any bioethical topic.
Singer thinks bioethics is torn between two camps: one that focuses on the quality of life, and the other that focuses on the sanctity of all life, regardless of quality. People who believe in the quality of life believe that the quality of life is relevant in making moral decisions. So, a person who is suffering can request assisted suicide, and a fetus that cannot think or feel doesn't have moral weight. In contrast, the sanctity of life group thinks all life has inherent value and dignity regardless of the quality of life. It doesn't matter if a fetus can think or feel, and it doesn't matter if a terminally ill person is suffering; all life has value, and it's always categorically wrong to take a life. Singer (of course) is on the quality of life side.
No spoilers, but Singer is amazing at building his argument and by the end, I largely agreed with him. I recommend reading this if you're interested in medicine, abortion or any bioethical topic.
September 15, 2021
I have a very many thoughts. Related and aligned most to the first third concerning the classification of death, brain death and how we think about keeping “dead” patients on life support. Very fascinating and incredibly challenging at times. Ultimately, the sanctity of human life is bullshit and in many ways, our society’s agreed moral compass is completely illogical.
September 30, 2017
I disagree with some of the premises and conclusions Peter Singer puts forth in this text, but these are, usually, differences of degree rather than kind. I find the vast majority of his work to be very solidly supported, and am somewhat bemused at how much rage and hatred he seems to attract in some circles. This, in all likelihood, deserves five stars, but it's not his best work, and I found it a little basic in certain areas. However, I wholeheartedly recommended as a thorough primer to a utilitarian perspective on sanctity of life issues to others who are new to the subject.
July 1, 2007
Really amazing. Working in the health care industry it means more to me than maybe to others. At some points you feel physically disturbed because you see his point and agree with what he has to say, even though it may be against everything you have been taught and believed in previously. I recommend this to everyone.
February 26, 2012
This was my favourite of his. In a Nietzschean Genealogy of Morals kind of way he addresses issues such as abortion and euthanasia by looking at the history of how we conceptualise 'being alive' and the moralities that stem for that. He has one of the best arguments for abortion that I have ever heard.
July 31, 2025
Estaba aburrida en la biblioteca, levanté la vista y vi este libro en una balda. El lomo me llamó, el título me pareció edgy, y cuando lo cogí y vi la portada, ya estaba dentro del todo. Qué puedo decir? Solo soy una post adolescente emo de, entonces, 31 años.
El caso es que yo no tenía ni idea de quién era este señor ni de qué iba a ir el libro, pero por mi trabajo estoy obsesionada con la muerte, la bioética, la neurociencia y los límites de muchas cosas.
Empiezo a leer y desde el primer párrafo ya sabía que lo iba a deborar, crudo y morboso, casos loquísimos y espeluznantes pero sobre los que solo quería averiguar más. Milagros médicos contemplados como experimentos nazis. Casos de personas que solo te quedas tranquila cuando por fin mueren. Un montón de dilemas éticos que para mí no suponían ningún dilema, tampoco para el autor. Estaba de acuerdo con cada una de sus palabras. Es más, cada una de sus palabras parecía escrita por una versión más inteligente y elocuente de mí. Estaba totalmente fascinada por sus cuestionamientos sobre la sacralidad de la vida o sobre qué nos convierte en personas, porque no nacemos personas, si no que nos convertimos. Pero lo que me fascinaba no era la novedad, si no que estaba poniendo en orden y dando fundamento a las ideas que yo había tenido siempre.
Estaba amando el libro, lo estaba amando de verdad, no quería que acabara, quería leer más verdades incómodas que yo ya conocía porque soy la más lista, la más edgy, la que menos respeta la autoridad ni la sacralidad, quería que me planteara más dilemas de los cuales ya sabía la respuesta. Estaba siendo tan bonito, demasiado bonito para ser verdad.
Entonces llegamos al final. No sé por qué me sorprendió, si todo estaba conduciendo de forma evidentemente a ello. Supongo que me sorprendió que alguien con quien estaba al 100% de acuerdo, de repente dijera algo con lo que estaba en total desacuerdo. Como si mientras te miras en el espejo, de repente tu reflejo hace un gesto que tú no has hecho.
Y ahí empezaron para mí todos los dilemas que no me habían vapuleado hasta entonces: ¿Estar de acuerdo con todo lo demás me conducía a mí también a estar de acuerdo con este final? ¿Podía si quiera estar de acuerdo con todo lo demás?
En fin, lo que quiero decir con todo esto es que estoy a tope con el aborto y la eutanasia, pero para defender a los monos (a tope con los monos), era necesario atacar a las personas con síndrome de down? Creo que simplemente no ha tratado con una persona con síndrome de down en la vida.
El caso es que yo no tenía ni idea de quién era este señor ni de qué iba a ir el libro, pero por mi trabajo estoy obsesionada con la muerte, la bioética, la neurociencia y los límites de muchas cosas.
Empiezo a leer y desde el primer párrafo ya sabía que lo iba a deborar, crudo y morboso, casos loquísimos y espeluznantes pero sobre los que solo quería averiguar más. Milagros médicos contemplados como experimentos nazis. Casos de personas que solo te quedas tranquila cuando por fin mueren. Un montón de dilemas éticos que para mí no suponían ningún dilema, tampoco para el autor. Estaba de acuerdo con cada una de sus palabras. Es más, cada una de sus palabras parecía escrita por una versión más inteligente y elocuente de mí. Estaba totalmente fascinada por sus cuestionamientos sobre la sacralidad de la vida o sobre qué nos convierte en personas, porque no nacemos personas, si no que nos convertimos. Pero lo que me fascinaba no era la novedad, si no que estaba poniendo en orden y dando fundamento a las ideas que yo había tenido siempre.
Estaba amando el libro, lo estaba amando de verdad, no quería que acabara, quería leer más verdades incómodas que yo ya conocía porque soy la más lista, la más edgy, la que menos respeta la autoridad ni la sacralidad, quería que me planteara más dilemas de los cuales ya sabía la respuesta. Estaba siendo tan bonito, demasiado bonito para ser verdad.
Entonces llegamos al final. No sé por qué me sorprendió, si todo estaba conduciendo de forma evidentemente a ello. Supongo que me sorprendió que alguien con quien estaba al 100% de acuerdo, de repente dijera algo con lo que estaba en total desacuerdo. Como si mientras te miras en el espejo, de repente tu reflejo hace un gesto que tú no has hecho.
Y ahí empezaron para mí todos los dilemas que no me habían vapuleado hasta entonces: ¿Estar de acuerdo con todo lo demás me conducía a mí también a estar de acuerdo con este final? ¿Podía si quiera estar de acuerdo con todo lo demás?
En fin, lo que quiero decir con todo esto es que estoy a tope con el aborto y la eutanasia, pero para defender a los monos (a tope con los monos), era necesario atacar a las personas con síndrome de down? Creo que simplemente no ha tratado con una persona con síndrome de down en la vida.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 13, 2018
It took me a while to finish this book just because I found myself stopping after most paragraphs to assess how I felt about the issue being discussed, and to ask myself why I felt that way. I like that this book made me question my views. I also appreciated the fact that the author shows how we use language to cover up that we are making value judgements in many situations.
Not everyone will agree with the views of this author 100%, but I think you can disagree and still take something away from the book even if that is just a better understanding of why you disagree.
Not everyone will agree with the views of this author 100%, but I think you can disagree and still take something away from the book even if that is just a better understanding of why you disagree.
February 20, 2020
interesting case studies, but many are similar
April 21, 2021
This book is full of interesting ideas and really makes the reader think about many different aspects of our traditional ethics.
July 31, 2015
For the most part, Rethinking Life and Death seems like a clumsily put together collection of medical and legal scenarios that explore the decisions involved in choosing a human's fate. This is glued together with philosophical questions, historical perspectives, a bit of neuroscience, and some logical propositions.
About two-thirds into the book though, you start to get the impression that Singer is actually building up to something revolutionary. Unfortunately, I think I can see where he's aiming, but for me he's just not quite making the mark.
The book was interesting, but certainly not as shocking as he promised it to be. Perhaps that is simply a reflection of its age, and how far these ethical questions have developed in the past twenty years.
That said, he does posit a few new ideas that I wasn't expecting. The medical and legal scenarios are well-chosen in their complexity of ethical dilemma, and reflection of different countries and cultures. The exploration of life and death as processes, and not as time stamped events is a little laboured, but gets there in the end.
He doesn't quite perfect the closing chapter, but I respect that it is truly difficult to conclude a book that only (really) incites the reader to ask themselves more questions.
I would like to have seen greater exploration of the differentiation between active and passive/positive and negative killing/healing, but I suspect I'll find that conversation in another book.
Overall, I suspect my expectations were set very high. But I'd consider this book essential reading for anyone interested in end-of-life decisions.
About two-thirds into the book though, you start to get the impression that Singer is actually building up to something revolutionary. Unfortunately, I think I can see where he's aiming, but for me he's just not quite making the mark.
The book was interesting, but certainly not as shocking as he promised it to be. Perhaps that is simply a reflection of its age, and how far these ethical questions have developed in the past twenty years.
That said, he does posit a few new ideas that I wasn't expecting. The medical and legal scenarios are well-chosen in their complexity of ethical dilemma, and reflection of different countries and cultures. The exploration of life and death as processes, and not as time stamped events is a little laboured, but gets there in the end.
He doesn't quite perfect the closing chapter, but I respect that it is truly difficult to conclude a book that only (really) incites the reader to ask themselves more questions.
I would like to have seen greater exploration of the differentiation between active and passive/positive and negative killing/healing, but I suspect I'll find that conversation in another book.
Overall, I suspect my expectations were set very high. But I'd consider this book essential reading for anyone interested in end-of-life decisions.
December 17, 2013
It is not a book to take lightly. The issues here are of the most importance. Medicine, philosophy and everyday life have to deal with the situations that stay in a grey area of morality and ethics. At the end the authors shows the great difficulties in making the right decision in a situation where line between life and death is very thin. As neuroscience and medicine developed with time and new frontiers are opened the dilemmas discussed in this book will have different answers and conclusions.
August 23, 2011
Profoundly interesting. It really requires an open mind, because as Singer says multiple times, and as the title suggests, it is advocating a collapse of what we consider to be traditional and common place ethics. Many of the ideas inside are ones I had considered but felt were too extreme to openly admit, but what Singer promotes makes rational sense, and I'm in support of at least a number of what he is advocating for. It is a shift, but it's one I feel could begin to take place.
Read
April 6, 2013Singer takes aim at verities such as 'the sanctity of all human life' whether brain dead really means that and what we mean by consciousness in life and death situations. He covers euthanasia, abortion and comas. Makes many excellent points. Argues for the right of other species to be afforded the same consideration as humans. He doesn't say what the meat eaters among us should do. Just a trace of overwriting at times in this book which tried my patience.
March 18, 2023
provocative. with utilitarian ethics as its premise, peter singer explores the traditional ways in which humans have ascribed value to individuals, and how internal inconsistencies in such evaluation methods may lead to serious moral complications. whether or not you agree with his conclusions, the brilliance of his new way of thinking is respectable and distinctively modern.
July 29, 2010
Interesting to know other people's thoughts on how the 'human being' is perceived and what is a 'human being' vs a 'person' and how this could or could not play out in the medical world. I can't say I agree with much of what is said but it's vital to stay informed of what the current trends in world thinking are.
September 12, 2014
A really well-written and fascinating book arguing for big changes to the way we currently think about ethical questions of life and death. Although I don't agree with all of his views, his arguments are most informative and thought-provoking and help to deepen my own reflections on these topics. Highly recommended.
November 11, 2012
More provocative than substantial. Enough over-simplifications and statements-that-are-true-because-I-say-so that I'm overall unpersuaded. This book is more anthemic than rigorous in my view. That said, he's a talented writer and clearly quite bright.
May 24, 2008
This book will make you think about issues relating to life and death that you may not have considered. Excellent read.
January 30, 2013
Some really good thoughts at times, some stuff I had never heard of before.
January 28, 2013
Well written, challenging ideas which are presented in a logical and clear way. Regardless of your opinions of the author's stances, I would argue this book is worth the read.
June 30, 2015
A very thought provoking book. he has some very radical concepts, but wherever you stand on these views, it will cause you to think more deeply about these topics.
February 5, 2017
Awesome!
April 23, 2017
This book is clearly written and very thought provoking. We respond viscerally to news items about abortion, assisted death, animal rights but do we really critically think about the ethics involved? Reading this book provided me with an excellent opportunity to better understand, and thereby hone, my own stance on these very important issues.
Read
December 26, 2017Read parts for a class
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews