Practical Ethics

by Peter Singer

Consequentialists start not with moral rules but with goals. They assess actions by the extent to which they further these goals.

The classical utilitarian regards an action as right if it produces more happiness for all affected by it than any alternative action and wrong if it does not.

‘more happiness’ here means net happiness, after deducting any suffering or misery that may also have been caused by the action; and if two different actions tie for the title of producing the g...

being that those who are virtuous will be rewarded by an eternity of bliss while the rest roast in hell.

this: Immanuel Kant, a most pious Christian, scorned anything that smacked of a self-interested motive for obeying the moral law.

mammals, morality has developed under the influence of our acquisition of language.

As John Stuart Mill pointed out in his essay On Nature, the word ‘nature’ either means everything that exists in the universe, including human beings and all that they create, or it means the world as it would be, apart from human beings and what humans bring about.

Why side with the proletariat rather than the bourgeoisie?

the more limited descriptive claim that the morality of a society divided into classes will always reflect the interests of the ruling class.

all, but Marxism still, in a confused sort of way, provides the impetus for a lot of woolly relativist ideas, often dressed up as ‘postmodernism’.

‘preference utilitarianism’ because it holds that we should do what, on balance, furthers the preferences of those affected.

This book can be read as an attempt to indicate how a consistent preference utilitarian would deal with a number of controversial problems.

issues, I’ll also consider, at various points, how hedonistic utilitarianism, theories of rights, of justice, of

absolute moral rules and so on, bear on the problems discussed.

Once we go beyond the agreement that blatant forms of racial discrimination are wrong and raise questions about the basis of the principle that all humans are equal, the consensus starts to weaken.

The plain fact is that humans differ, and the differences apply to so many characteristics that the search for a factual basis on which to erect the principle of equality seems hopeless.

Rawls maintains that moral personality is the basis of human equality,

(Rawls deals with infants and children by including potential moral persons along with actual ones within the scope of the principle of equality.

We can reject this ‘hierarchy of intelligence’ and similar fantastic schemes only if we are clear that the claim to equality does not rest on the possession of intelligence, moral personality, rationality or similar matters of fact.

There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their interests. Equality is a basic ethical principle, not an assertion of fact.

and take into account the interests of all those affected,

the principle of equal consideration of interests.

When marginal utility is taken into account, the principle of equal consideration of interests inclines us towards an equal

distribution of income – disincentive effects aside – and to that extent the egalitarian will endorse its conclusions.

Can any of us really give equal consideration to the welfare of our family and that of strangers?

we shall come to think of hierarchy, male dominance and inequality as part of our evolved nature, and thus unchangeable.

The sex roles that exist today are, on this view, an inheritance from these simpler circumstances, an inheritance that became obsolete once technology made it possible for the weakest person to operate a crane that lifts fifty tons or to fire a missile that kills millions.

brought into being under conditions of equal opportunity.

community. In the United States, education has been at the centre of the dispute over affirmative action because the Supreme Court has rejected some university admission procedures favouring disadvantaged groups.

school, the university reserved sixteen out of every one hundred places for students belonging to a disadvantaged minority.

There is no inherent right to admission, and equal consideration of the interests of applicants is not involved in normal admission tests.

case, ‘Preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without special protection.’ To achieve real equality, it might be said, members of minority groups and women must win their places on their merits.

provides that no person shall, on the grounds of colour, race or national origin, be excluded from any activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

added, however, that there would be no objection to a university seeking diversity in its student body, and in the pursuit of that objective, it could include race as one among a number of factors, like athletic or artistic ability, work experience, demonstrated compassion, a history of overcoming disadvantage or leadership potential.

The court thus effectively allowed universities to choose their student body in accord with their own goals, so long as they did not use quotas.

We can best overcome such prejudices by becoming more familiar with people who are different from us, which won't happen if they are not employed in positions where they meet members of the public.

ought not to depend on what they are like or what abilities they possess

It is on this basis that we are able to say that the fact that some people are not members of our race does not entitle us to exploit them, and the fact that some people are less intelligent than others does not mean that their interests may be discounted or disregarded.

similarly implies that the fact that other animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests may be discounted or disregarded.

The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way.

If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.

Humans have much greater awareness of what is happening to them, and this makes their suffering worse.

anticipation, more detailed memory, greater knowledge of what is happening and so on.

after we have discussed the value of life in general.

People living in industrialized societies can easily obtain an adequate diet without the use of animal flesh. Meat is not necessary for good health or longevity.

When we feed these grains to animals, only about one-quarter – and in some cases, as little as one-tenth – of the nutritional value remains as meat for human consumption. So, with the exception of animals raised entirely on grazing land unsuitable for crops, animals are eaten neither for health nor to increase our food supply.

To avoid speciesism, we must stop these practices.

because it is possible to buy animal products from animals allowed to graze outside.

It is still doubtful if using them for food is compatible with equal consideration of interests.

One could argue that the farmer is providing the animal with a comfortable life where all its needs are being met, which will be vastly different to if it was left to its own devices in the wild.