|
Saints Alive >
Hall of Fame >
Nominees
Philosopher: Peter Singer
1946-
Singer's parents were Viennese Jews who escaped the Anschluss to
Australia in 1938. His father became a successful importer of coffee and
tea, his mother practised medicine. Singer was born in 1946 in Melbourne,
and went to Melbourne University, where he studied law, history, and
philosophy, graduating in 1967. Having received an M.A. in 1969 (with a
thesis on "Why should I be moral?"), he went on a scholarship to
University College, Oxford to do the B.Phil., which he took in 1971. He
was Radcliffe Lecturer at University College from 1971 to 1973, during
which time he worked on a thesis under R.M. Hare on civil disobedience
(published as his first book, Democracy and Disobedience, in 1973).
From Oxford he went to teach at New York University for sixteen months,
during which time he researched and wrote his second book, Animal
Liberation (1975). He then returned to Melbourne where, apart from
numerous visiting appointments around the world, he's stayed . first as
Senior Lecturer at La Trobe University, then from 1977 as professor of
philosophy at Monash University. Since 1999 he's also been Ira W. DeCamp
Professor of Bioethics at the University Centre for Human Values,
Princeton University.
Not only are Singer's philosophical interests confined largely to the
fields of ethics and politics, but even within those fields he's almost
solely interested in practical problems such as abortion, euthanasia, and
our treatment of animals. Despite this (or, perhaps, because of it), he's
one of the best-known of modern philosophers, and certainly the most
controversial. His greatest influence has been in the field of animal
ethics.
Animals
His 1975 book Animal Liberation sets his agenda. In it, he
argues that although human beings have a long history of mistreating
animals, there is no moral justification for such behaviour. At the heart
of morality is the wrongness of causing unnecessary suffering, but
suffering doesn't come in different qualities, only some of which are
morally relevant; we can't condemn the pain caused to members of one
species while condoning the pain caused to members of another, any more
than we can do so for difference races or sexes. The fact (in so far as it
is a fact) that non-human animals lack our intellect and our moral
understanding is irrelevant here; it's no more right to make a dog suffer
than it is to do the same to a human imbecile or new-born baby.
The book contains not only philosophical argument, but also a great
deal of evidence concerning such issues as animal experimentation and
factory farming. What it doesn't enter into is the theoretical basis of
his moral position, though his references to and quotations from Jeremy
Bentham indicate the relevance of Utilitarianism; what makes an action
morally wrong is its harmful consequences, the pain that it causes. He
makes this Utilitarian foundation of his views more explicit in later
works.
Singer's book had a tremendous effect — not only on individuals,
bringing many people, philosophers and non-philosophers alike, to
vegetarianism, but also on society. We now take the notion of animal
liberation for granted as a respectable moral cause; when Singer was
writing, it was widely seen as the concern of eccentrics and little old
ladies with too many cats.
Life and death
Singer's notoriety stems mainly from his conclusions concerning
abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. He argues that, although they can
suffer, the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the ability
to plan and anticipate their future; it's therefore morally permissible
under certain circumstances, to end their lives. The proviso is important,
as is his careful distinction between what should be said about voluntary
and involuntary euthanasia. Singer offers full and rigorous arguments for
his various moral positions, but instead of debating the issues with him,
many of his opponents (including, unhappily, some philosophers) prefer
rhetoric, polemic, and even physical abuse. He has been accused of holding
Nazi or near-Nazi views, and campaigners have tried to have his lectures
and even academic appointments cancelled (and have sometimes succeeded;
see, for example, "On being silenced in Germany", the appendix to his 1993
edition of Practical Ethics).
When opponents do address his arguments, they often do so on the basis
of distorted and oversimplified versions — which is especially odd, given
that he is one of the clearest of philosophical writers, with much of his
work being aimed specifically at a lay readership. In researching the
links given below, I found among the plentiful supply of on-line material
expressing views critical of his position nothing that either avoided
childish insult, gross misrepresentation of his position, or the use of
journalistic rhetoric in place of argument. In the philosophical
literature, of course, one can find proper debate; no philosopher, no
matter how brilliant, gets it all right all the time. Perhaps it's a
measure of Singer's success in offering strong arguments for his views
that his opponents are forced to fight dirty rather than meting him in
fair debate. |
