Peter Singer

[gertvegan]

This was bulletin posted on myspace.

I was most concerned about the reports regarding Peter Singer and decided to contact him directly, this morning, to find out his views 'from the horses mouth'.

His response was swift and included an attached letter to the editor of the Observer which is as follows:
____________________________

The Editor

Your story "Animal Guru Gives Tests His Blessing" (Observer, 26/11/06) suggests that my remarks in the BBC2 documentary "Monkeys, Rats and Me:
Animal Testing" represent a change in my position on animal testing. That impression needs to be corrected.

Neither in my 1975 book Animal Liberation, nor anywhere else, have I ever said that no experiments on animals could ever be justifiable. My position
has always been that whether an act is right or wrong depends on its consequences. I do insist, however, that the interests of animals count among those consequences, and that we cannot justify speciesism, which I define as giving less weight to the interests of nonhuman animals than we give to the similar interests of human beings.

In our on-camera discussion, Professor Aziz claimed that experiments he had performed on a small number of monkeys had yielded major benefits for tens
of thousands of people suffering from Parkinson's Disease. I replied that if the facts were indeed as he asserted, and there was no other way in which
the benefits could have been achieved, such research could be justifiable.
Whether the facts are as Professor Aziz claims I shall leave for others to debate.

Professor Aziz is quoted as saying that my remarks are "an encouraging sign." Before he gets too encouraged, he might consider that in Animal Liberation I suggested that a test for whether a proposed experiment on
animals is justifiable is whether the experimenter would be prepared to carry out the experiment on human beings at a similar mental level - say, those born with irreversible brain damage. If Professor Aziz is not prepared to say that he would think such experiments justifiable, his
willingness to use animals is based on a prejudice against giving their interests the same weight as he gives to the interests of members of our own species.

Whether or not the occasional experiment on animals is defensible, I remain opposed to the institutional practice of using animals in research, because, despite some improvements over the past thirty years, that practice still
fails to give equal consideration to the interests of animals. For that reason I oppose putting more resources into building new facilities for animal experimentation. Instead, these funds should go into clinical research involving consenting patients, and into developing other methods of research that do not involve the harmful use of animals.

Sincerely,

Peter Singer

[focus]

In our on-camera discussion, Professor Aziz claimed that experiments he had performed on a small number of monkeys had yielded major benefits for tens of thousands of people suffering from Parkinson's Disease. I replied that if the facts were indeed as he asserted, and there was no other way in which the benefits could have been achieved, such research could be justifiable.

If Singer or Aziz were to insert their own name in place of the word 'monkeys' in the above paragraph, I wonder if they would still feel the same. Or anyone else for that matter.

[gertvegan]

the programme also showed that we need some harder and tougher debates about the ethics of animal research.

And from a pro-test supporter as well, see here.

[fiamma]

I agree, herbwormwood. That's why I advocate stem cell research every chance I get. We might have a shot in this country of getting it approved once Bush is out of office.

They recently had a referendum here to make research on stem cells legal, but the Vatican was actively encouraging people not to vote and they failed to reach the required quota.

[Daniel]

Why does Singer consider vegan advocacy to be counter-productive, Daniel? Can you expand on that?

Peter Singer says veganism is too much to ask of people. This reflects Singer's strong conservativism, because the whole point of social change is to challenge society. Singer outright opposes radical change in favor of promoting alternative methods of exploiting animals. Singer does this in The Way We Eat, where it is recommended that consumers "buy the more expensive but better-tasting eggs from hens free to move around inside sheds." Singer describes a vegan lifestyle as "the other choice," as opposed to the "better-tasting" one.

Singer doesn't really challenge the assumption that humans shouldn't exploit other animals. But more importantly, Singer does not believe in veganism as a social movement. In several interviews over the last year Peter Singer has repeatable said that a world that continues to exploit other animals would be morally acceptable. Singer's opinion is that no one, including Singer, should feel obligated to live a vegan way of life.

In the misnomer Animal Liberation, Singer advocates that there is negligible ethical concern with exploiting so-called "free-rage" chickens for their eggs. Singer wrote, "They will be killed when they cease to lay productively, but they will have a pleasant existence until that time."

Singer's views are in stark contrast with Donald Watson's comment that this sort of "idyllic scene [is] nothing more than Death Row. A Death Row where every creature's days are numbered by the point at which it was no longer of service to human beings."

It seems obvious to me that the person who opposes exploitation and killing is truly in favor of liberation.

[paec311]

I've been trying to find a site where I can watch this debate. Does anyone have a link that is viewable in the US?

[Korn]

Peter Singer says veganism is too much to ask of people.

IMO it's not too much to ask, but it's too much to except that everybody will do it, or that we'll all be 'perfect vegans' in a non-vegan world.

If he really wants animal liberation, how can he expect the world to move in that direction of animal liberation without asking people to avoid animal product as much as 'practical and possible'?

[fiamma]

Singer puts across a very bold, challenging and interesting point of view. I can see where he's coming from, not that I necessarily agree. I'm just going on what I've read here, I haven't read any of his books.

[Korn]

Singer puts across a very bold, challenging and interesting point of view.

Where's the 'interesting' part of it?

[fiamma]

Interesting because he states that veganism is too much to ask of people. I think it's incredibly difficult to be vegan, and when I get the comment "oh I admire you so much" I suppose i'm flattered, but I also feel like I'm being labelled, like my views are way too extreme for others to comprehend and therefore even to take into consideration. In my experience people can react by shutting their systems down, so to speak, saying veganism is too extreme and so they are unwilling to listen to what we have to say. Perhaps if the vegan movement showed a little more "sympathy" people would be more willing to listen and it would bring about more changes. But veganism by its very nature would never change like this, it would no longer be veganism. I'm just giving my interpretation of Singer's viewpoint here from what little info has been given on this thread; my own views on veganism have not changed.

[Korn]

Perhaps if the vegan movement showed a little more "sympathy" people would be more willing to listen and it would bring about more changes. But veganism by its very nature would never change like this, it would no longer be veganism.

Hmm... the way I see it, 'sympathy' and respect is the very core of veganism. Unlike other lifestyles, the 'vegan sympathy' includes animals too: we don't want to exploit them or harm them. If he thinks animals should be liberated (they are basically treated like slaves today), I can't see how this could happen without adopting a vegan lifestyle, which is why I can't see how he both can respect animals and state that changing our lifestyles in a way which means harming them as little as possible ( = a vegan lifestyle) can be asking for too much.

People who moves from one country to another often miss the food or products they ate in their home country, but they decide to move to somewhere else, and therefore they adjust their lifestyle to their new location, just the same way pregnant women stop normally smoking or avoid other things they know isn't good for their child. Change may be difficult, but it's a lot easier when the motivation/understanding is strong, especially with help from others. If he has said that veganism is asking too much of people, he probably speaks for himself: if what I've heard is right, it seems that he is more concerned with talking and writing about these topics than actually changing his own lifestyle. I may also be difficult for him to defend killing of disabled babies, so the question is: why are people able to do something 'difficult', but not something else that's 'difficult'?


I think the degree of difficulty associated with going vegan is associated with a few of important things:

1) If you believe it's difficult, it'll probably seem difficult
2) If we don't accept that change some time may take time, and that we're not perfect (and are perfectionists), it will feel harder to change than it actually is
3) If you meet a lot of people who support you in thinking that going vegan is difficult, it may be harder than if you communicate with people who have done it and support you in moving towards a vegan lifestyle
4) Wrong focus.

Last time I've heard about Singers veganism, he said that he had gradually become increasingly vegan since 1971. Maybe he personally finds it difficult to change his habits, and creates a theory around it, eg. by saying that there's nothing wrong with allowing oneself 'the luxury of not being vegan' once in a while... If we forget about rights and wrongs, it seems that he personally see something 'luxurious' about eating non-vegan - which he may or may not think, but instead of trying to deal with it, he builds a theory around it.


I'm all for accepting our lack of perfection. I believe it helps people who want to go vegan a lot if they accept that 'yesterday I ate something non-vegan, but that was yesterday, and I'll keep living according to how I want to live', but that's different than defending a right to 'respect' our own old habits more than respecting the animals that suffer as a result of our tastebuds or old habits.


Habits do change, and while it's important to accept that we are not perfect, I think it's a lot better to try to live according to how we think and feel we should live (also when traveling or in a fancy restaurant) instead of building a lifestyle or philosophy around or imperfection.

Some people think it's easy to be vegans, and others think it is difficult. If we could find out why some people think it's difficult, maybe we could help them seeing that it's easy? My first attempts at going vegan failed, and I have some ideas regarding why this happened. But that's probably a different thread!

[fiamma]

At this moment in time I could list a lot of reasons as to why I'm finding veganism difficult, but I fear it would just turn into a gigantic whine, as well as derailing this thread Maybe you could start a new thread and be our Vegan Agony Uncle

[Korn]

OK; I'll play the role of the uncle, if you start the thread. Deal?

[howdawg]

Three cheers Korn!

[eve]

At this moment in time I could list a lot of reasons as to why I'm finding veganism difficult, but I fear it would just turn into a gigantic whine, as well as derailing this thread Maybe you could start a new thread and be our Vegan Agony Uncle

I understand fiamma even though I don't find it difficult to follow a vegan lifestyle. At the moment, with chrissie in the offing, there are invitations to celebrations, luncheons etc, but it doesn't bother me to decline invitations. However, this could be an age thing - I'm at an age when I couldn't care less about celebrations, including christmas - over chrissie I'll probably spend more time reading. I do have a few friends, but they are all meat eaters, so if we want to get together, it is over a coffee/soyaccino, but I don't want to be at a table where people are scoffing down a chicken's legs, or a slice from a cow's rump. When you are younger, as most people here are, socialising is important. Not to me though, therefore difficulties are removed.

Other difficulties I've noticed people on this forum have, is to find confectionary that is vegan, and quite frankly it is frustrating to me that instead of a discussion on a topic of interest, it is on vegan timtams or the like! I often feel like commenting: "get real"

[fiamma]

Thank you for your kind reply, eve, I appreciate it very much. Someone on the forum (don't remember who it was, sorry) said that veganism in itself is not difficult, it's other people who make it difficult, and I think that's true to a certain extent. But then again we don't live in a vacuum, we must live alongside others and interact with them, therefore cutting others out of the equation does not make much sense. I could never go back to eating how I did before and am proud of the choice I've made. Thanks again eve for your support.

Also thanks to Daniel for your reply.

[Steph]

At the moment, with chrissie in the offing, there are invitations to celebrations, luncheons etc, but it doesn't bother me to decline invitations. However, this could be an age thing - I'm at an age when I couldn't care less about celebrations, including christmas - over chrissie I'll probably spend more time reading. I do have a few friends, but they are all meat eaters, so if we want to get together, it is over a coffee/soyaccino, but I don't want to be at a table where people are scoffing down a chicken's legs, or a slice from a cow's rump. When you are younger, as most people here are, socialising is important. Not to me though, therefore difficulties are removed.

Other difficulties I've noticed people on this forum have, is to find confectionary that is vegan, and quite frankly it is frustrating to me that instead of a discussion on a topic of interest, it is on vegan timtams or the like! I often feel like commenting: "get real"

Eve, I agree completely.

[eve]

Last night on the Phillip Adams show, Late Night Live, Adams repeated an interview he had with Peter Singer a little while back. I missed it previously, but heard the hour-long interview last night, and it will be repeated this afternopon at 4pm on abc radio national. Well worth listening to their conversation. Apparently Peter Singer was here to speak at the writers festival, and to launch his book about the ethics of what we eat, that he wrote together with Mason.

[nickn505]

Thankyou for the info I'll have to tune into that. I also didn't know he had a new book out.
Peter Singer was required reading in my ethics class and I really enjoyed it. It was a reason why I went vegan.

[Campbell]

I think Peter Singer has some useful ideas, and his heart is in the right place. It's interesting that he doesn't call himself an animal rights advocate in the true sense - from a philosophical standpoint, he's a utilitarian and doesn't base his argument on 'rights' at all. To the extent that human and non-human animals have an equal interest in avoiding suffering and living a happy and peaceful life, Singer says we shouldn't kill or harm animals unnecessarily. His reasoning is based on the consequences of our actions, rather than the action itself.
Maybe the subtleties of ethical reasoning are less important in the context of political activism, raising awareness and promoting compassion towards all life. I do admire Singer and think he provides valuable support to the vegan community most of the time. But personally speaking, I believe compassion is an ethical imperative in itself, not because of any rational assessment of consequences (which we can't always predict) but because gentle actions are inherently good and beautiful. I guess I'm not an especially rational person.

[Korn]

I looked for some info about Gary Francione, and here's what he says about the 'Singer/Peta'-coalition:

Singer maintains that animal use per se does not raise a moral issue because most nonhumans do not have an interest in continuing to live;

Singer maintains that we can consume animals in an ethical manner;

Singer regards inflicting violence on nonhumans as an acceptable way of learning about animal exploitation;

PETA kills (“euthanizes” is the wrong word because it implies a death that is in the interest of the animal) thousands of healthy animals because PETA apparently accepts Singer's view that animals do not have a fundamental and morally important interest in continuing to live. “Animal rights” means “humane” executions.

I don't agree in all Francione says, but can someone who knows more about Singer than I do confirm that what Francione says about Singer above is correct?

[Barley]

Korn - if you don't already know the writings of Hans Ruesch - I'm sure you must - he had a long (possibly still has, though Hans is very frail now I believe) bitter battle with Singer - try googling him, he (Hans) has a website I think called CIVIS. When I was first involved in AR back in the 80's Singer was our hero - there's no doubt about it, but now I find myself regretting the alleigance - I don't think he has much to say that I would agree with.....

[Pisces]

I read that entire article that Korn just posted as a link (thanks, Korn). I was aware of Peter Singer's hypocrisy of "approving" testing on monkeys--as if that wasn't appalling enough!!! Not only does my disturbed state and repugnance toward Peter Singer grow, but I am also officially appalled with PETA. Not to mention Singer and Mason's "thing" they did with the chickens and turkeys, that they believe to be acceptable! Singer, Bruce Friedrich, Mason, PETA, and other corporate welfare not only PROMOTE the exploitation but are lip service to veganism (the TRUE animal rights movement).

Speaking of which--after reading that I now know the exact difference between "animal welfare" and "animal rights". The latter is the way to go, whereas the former is a "double-think" (not what it's commonly believed to mean).

Yeah, I was originally with Peter Singer and PETA (thinking they really were supporting veganism), until I started learning their true colours--and if that wasn't enough--that article officially was the last straw.

[Korn]

If it's true that Singer thinks that we can consume animals in an ethical manner - and since it was Peter Singers viewpoints that inspired Ingrid Newkirk to found Peta 20-30 years ago, maybe we shouldn't expect too much of either of these in terms of promoting veganism. I just tried that google trick where you can enter a site name and search for how many times certain phrases are used there, and peta.com contains 'go vegetarian' 32 times, but 'go vegan' only once. Even if we all know they support veganism, their focus seem to be somewhere else - and if Peter Singer, Ingrid Newkirks inspirator really thinks that animal use as such does not raise a moral issue, or that 'most animals do not have an interest in continuing to live', it seems that the whole aspect of animals liberation got lost somewhere, doesn't it?

I don't know if any of these statements are Francione's (mis)interpretations of Singer - and I must admit that I'm not interested enough in his philosophy to read his books - but very often when I come across vegans who comments on Singer, it isn't very favorable. Weird, because he's sometimes described as the 'godfather' of the animal liberation movement.

[Charlotte]

Reading Singer did not make me go vegan but convinced me that I had good logic for my feelings. I'm also pro choice and tend to go along with a lot of utilitarian arguments, I don't see an logic or reason in moral/ethical absolutism.

As regards the killing of severely diabled children, I don't think he advocates this on any eugenic ground, rather on the the potential enjoyment of subsequent life and interest in continuation of life.

[eve]

I have no time for utilitarianism since it is about the greatest good for the greatest number. You can't see logic in moral/ethical absolutism, but I can because to me, killing a human or a nonhuman animal is morally wrong. Same with torture. As far as the meat industry is concerned, it is all about torture and killing.

[dreama]

I don't like Peter Singer. Not so much for his animal rights views, but he is very Anti Disabled. He thinks disabled children should be killed, and also I read on the abolitionist site that he thinks that they should test on brain damaged humans instead of primates. I found that apsolutely shocking.

When I heard him interviewed he stated "I am predominatly vegan but will resort to a vegetarian diet if there are no other options such as if I'm on an aeroplane and have no choice of vegan food". Well I can't count the number of times ive found myself in a situation with nothin to eat, so I can see where he's coming from. I think he's saying he makes as many vegan choices as he can which is all most of us can do.

Well if I go somewhere that has no vegan choice, and I don't have my own food with me, I just don't eat. After all we won't starve if we miss a few meals and it should teach us to bring food with us next time.

[dreama]

As regards the killing of severely diabled children, I don't think he advocates this on any eugenic ground, rather on the the potential enjoyment of subsequent life and interest in continuation of life.

I am Deafblind(although I wasn't born that way). I was born with thyroid difficency and mild asperger syndrome.

I also had a really good friend at college who was born deafblind from rubbella damage. Although most people with rubella damage suffer some degree of learning difficulties, he didn't. He is one of the nicest people I've known and he did seem to enjoy life. At least he did while he was at college with me. Yet Peter Singer would have had him killed simply because of his disability.

I don't care what reasons he gives for killing the disabled. I think it's morally wrong and rather shocking that a vegan should condone his views.

[paec311]

He thinks disabled children should be killed, and also I read on the abolitionist site that he thinks that they should test on brain damaged humans instead of primates.

Singer argues that simply because a being is a "child", or human being, should not mean that they are given any weighted preference for their interests.

Like primates children, the severally disabled, etc. Might be different in some sense (depending on the degree of the disability/age of the child) but all share a similar interest; an interest in avoiding pain and suffering. From Singers point of view, this quality is the vital characteristic that determines whether or not a being is to be given any moral consideration.

Singer isn't saying that we should test on disabled humans instead of non humans, rather if testing is to be done at all, the candidates should be determined with equal consideration; regardless of race, sex or species.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I am by no means trying to justify any form of animal testing (or human testing) for medicine, cosmetics etc. I just feel there is a big discrepancy with Singers logic; whether one agrees with his utilitarian point of view or not. [/FONT]

[dreama]

It doesn't matter how you word it. There is NEVER any justification for Animal testing on ANYBODY. Peter Singers views are ethnically indefencable, Both on Animal and Disability rights. I've worked with people with severe learning difficulties. Some of them are really sweet.

“HIV research would be more useful if it were carried out on brain-damaged humans rather than chimps"

So you see he DOES say endorse the testing of brain damaged humans which I think is totally indefensable. Read more about it here:

[chey62]

I don't like Peter Singer because he is not a true vegan-he talks about being a conscientious omnivore and that it was ok to give in in certain situations. i also don't like his view when it comes to disabled children. I am profoundly hearing impaired (deaf in the left ear, mayby20 percent left on the right ear, I wear a hearing aid).
In re Singers stand on being a conscietnious omnivore, pelase check out Gary Francione's blog, his website is www.animal-law.org

[BlackDog]

“HIV research would be more useful if it were carried out on brain-damaged humans rather than chimps"

But was he saying if we're going to test on sentient beings it would be preferable to test on brain damaged humans rather than chimpanzees?

I know that he's often been quoted out of context and I've heard him play the devils advocate by saying that 'if you're going to do ***** why not do *****'

[eve]

Most vegans believe they know where Peter Singer is coming from, but it is always good to hear a little more. Tomorrow evening (Monday 28/5) on abc tv 'Talking Heads' program at 6.30pm, there is a half-hour interview with Singer. I'll certainly be watching!

[eve]

It was an excellent interview, and he doesn't come over as bludgeoning his views, but that is his manner anyway. He was asked some searching questions, and his answers were great.

[thecatspajamas1]

I saw him speak in Princeton and was kind of disappointed... it was like he was pretending to not be tooo into animal rights so that the snobby Princeton crowd would listen to him maybe. I remember he said "I am not an animal rights activist" at the beginning of his speech.

Oh, but the other guy debating him, on the pro-meat side... don't even know his name... was saying that humans are more evolved because we use forks which keep our hands from our mouths so that we can communicate when we dine. (Um.... not all cultures use forks, are they less evolved??)

[eve]

Well it was nothing like that, but for anyone interested in a transcript of the interview - http://www.abc.net.au/talkingheads/txt/s1932378.htm

[treehugga]

I grabbed his book 'How are we to live?' from the Library last Friday and am really enjoying it. I especially like his thought re if we put more effort into contributing to good & lessening harm and not getting sucked into all the wants of consumerism, we would not need any psychotherapy. As a social worker I loved that and believe it makes lots of sense. I enjoyed reading that transcript too.

[fiver]

I have a great deal of respect for Peter Singer, even though I find myself more and more at odds with his utilitarian arguments, which seem to allow for the exploitation of both humans and non-humans in the minority who are deemed expendable according to the subjective yardsticks of others. It was his book 'Animal Liberation' which led to me becoming a vegetarian (in ~2000/2001) and a year ago, a vegan. His arguments for the equal consideration of animals are flawless and lead to many an omnivore squirming when engaged in debate. At the moment, I am leaning towards the 'rights' view...this is Tom Regan's response to Peter Singer's comments on the show:

"In "Father of animal activism backs monkey testing" (The Sunday Times, Times Online, November 26, 2006), philosopher Peter Singer is quoted as saying that research that involved giving Parkinson's disease to monkeys was "justifiable." Singer expresses his opinion as part of an exchange between him and one of the researchers, Tipu Aziz, an Oxford neurosurgeon who tells Singer that "[t]o date 40,000 people have been made better" because of the research done on "only 100 monkeys." The exchange is part of a BBC2 program, "Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing" that aired on 27 November.

What makes Singer's opinion noteworthy is not what he thinks but who he is said to be. He is (we are told) "[t]he father of the modern animal rights movement," and his book, Animal Liberation, "is now considered the bible of the [animal rights] movement."

Taken together, these two statements would naturally lead people to infer that Singer believes in animal rights, and that the judgment he makes (that the research is "justifiable") is one that animal rights advocates would accept.

Neither inference is true. The Peter Singer interviewed on the BBC2 program does not believe that nonhuman animals have basic moral rights. As early as 1978, three years after the publication of Animal Liberation, he explicitly disavowed this belief.

No, Singer's moral convictions are those of a utilitarian. He believes that consequences determine moral right and wrong. Right actions bring about the best consequences. Wrong actions fail to do so. It is open to Singer, therefore, to judge the research "justifiable," which he does, based on the consequences Dr. Aziz describes.

People who believe in animal rights could not disagree more. The role basic moral rights play, whomsoever's rights they are, is to protect individuals against the very type of abuse so painfully illustrated by the monkey research under review. The basic moral rights of the individual (the rights to life and bodily integrity, for example) should never be violated in the name of reaping benefits for others.

Obviously, nothing I have said here proves that monkeys or other nonhuman animals have basic moral rights, or that utilitarianism is a flawed moral outlook. These are matters I have explored in other places. My far more modest objectives have been to correct some misunderstandings: first, that Peter Singer is an advocate of animal rights (he is not) and, second, that his judgment (that the research is "justifiable") would be endorsed by animal rights advocates (it would not).

There remains a final misunderstanding that needs to be set right. In the Sunday Times story, Gareth Walsh writes that "[Singer] said last week that he stood by his comments to Aziz, provided the monkeys had been treated as well as possible," to which Aziz is quoted as saying, "It just shows (SPEAK) haven’t a case, to be honest."

Precisely what is it that shows that SPEAK has no case against vivisection in general, the construction of the new research laboratory at Oxford in particular? It can only be that Peter Singer stands by his judgment that the research in which Aziz participated was "justifiable." It is the fact that Peter Singer said this that is supposed to expose SPEAK's opposition as groundless.

One must hope that Dr. Aziz is a better researcher than he is a thinker. It is an elementary principle of logic that no statement is true because of the identity of the person who makes it. Granted, Peter Singer is an influential philosopher. But not even Peter Singer can make statements true merely by making them. The truth of the matter is, Dr. Aziz and his colleagues will need to address SPEAK's opposition on its merits, not pretend that they have done so by enlisting Peter Singer on their side."

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Animal-Ri.../dp/0520243862

fiver.

[dreama]

I think Peter singer does the animal rights movement more damage then credit. It gives people the misleading impression that we care more about animals then we do humans but it doesn't seem he cares about either if he will talk and even agree with monsters that torture primates.

I sent Peter Singer an email. I'm yet to get a response from it. It's obvious I'm not worth bothering about just because I am not 'perfect'.

[Prawnil]

That's a badly unfair thing to assume.

[eve]

Any email I've sent to Peter Singer has always been answered immediately. What you are assuming about him, dreama, is purely in your own mind.

[dreama]

Any email I've sent to Peter Singer has always been answered immediately. What you are assuming about him, dreama, is purely in your own mind.

Well that just proves my point doesn't it. He obviously doesn't want to communicate with anybody who is disabled as he thinks we should all be killed at birth.

[horselesspaul]

Singer likes the sound of his own voice far too much.
He seems to look for a grand unified theory of everything all the time and ends up sounding like a c0ck to me and a nutter to others. Utilitarianism has its flaws with regard to the treatment of living things and all too often he rather obtusely refuses to see it.

[Prawnil]

His living is to ramble in an at least mostly coherent way. Streams and streams of wordy logic for his entire career. Useful thinking points for many, but anyone having that much of their own reasoning exposed to, & immortalised in, the public view will always be doomed to appear nuts & arrogant.
What he says is far away, and is all cold mathematics, just in words, so there is no need at all to be upset by it. Intellectual masturbation is all it amounts to, so there's no need to assume anything about the man's character as a human being, dreama. Especially the value judgement on your own real life that he has never made, and will never make.

[mjnewbould]

yes - I think that basically philosophers construct arguments in order to see things clearly. Modern preference utilitarians such as Singer might - for example- point out that there is no difference morally between infanticide, abortion and animal experimentation (though clearly there is a legal difference) but that does not mean that they are actually advocating all or any of these; my understanding is that Peter Singer is only looking at what logically follows from the arguments.

[horselesspaul]

You are right Prawnil.
It is his purpose to appear just as he does, I suppose. Fair enough.

[Lauralam]

NOTES: I agree with almost everything philosopher Pete Singer says about animal rights. He does however believe that the comparative VALUES of human lives and non-human animal lives are unequal because humans have a greater mental capacity and treasure their pasts and futures in ways that animals cannot. Singer concludes essentially that human beings value their lives more than non-human animals do, and that given a choice of saving the life of only one, human or animal, the human's life is more valuable. This is my rebuttal to his view:

From a human standpoint, I believe it is ethically improper to subtract value from the lives of non-human animals based on whether or not they can anticipate a clear future or lament a defined past. Those things which seemingly add meaning to our lives as human beings are not necessarily the same items that qualify the value of the lives of non-human animals. Most non-human animals, as we understand, do not have an in-depth awareness of or infatuation with the passage of time as most human beings do, excluding those humans born without the necessary mental faculties to sense time. I would argue that interpreting extra worth in a life based solely on the abilities to both reflect on a past and look forward to a future is unfounded, and deeply rooted in human egoism.

Non-human animals, like human beings, are in fact AWARE that they exist. Based on these requirements, it would follow that the lives of human beings who truly live "in the moment", without any serious consideration of their pasts or for their futures are somehow less valuable than the lives of those human beings who look back on their pasts with a nostalgic or regretful sense of remembrance or meticulously plan and anticipate their futures. Please note that non-human animals do employ the most important aspects of time awareness. Birds build nests to plan for their young, and a cat, upon being burned by a hot stove, will avoid making the same mistake in the future. Non-human animals both learn from their pasts and plan for their futures. They do not, however, as far as we know, experience wishfulness, dread, regret, or nostalgia, all of which are inherently selfish, and none of which are morally significant. Thus, identifying these morally hollow emotions and thrusting them forth as evidence of the greater value of human life as compared to the lives of non-human animals is shrouded in self-interest and without moral basis or impartial judgment.

Let me digress for a moment to attempt to quickly estimate the non-human animal's capacity for morality. Non-human animals certainly cannot be accused of causing intentional harm, or acting wickedly, but they do exhibit very basic abilities to act to do what is right. For example, animals are morally compelled to care for their young as we do. When veal calves are wrenched away from their mothers on factory farms directly after birth, the mother will "scream", obviously tormented by the event. It is not in the mother's self-interest to do this. Her physical pain and fate does not depend on the presence of her calf. I believe this agony is directly caused by the ability of the sow to recognize moral "rightness" and the offense thereof, and although the sow does not realize that her child will be slaughtered, she does realize that her moral obligation to care for her calf is being compromised. In the relative respects, the sow's instinctual capacity for morality is much like that of a human child, who also has a built-in capacity to recognize morality, but has not yet acquired the tools to apply this morality unfailingly to the world in which we live. I would refer to any sentient being that cannot intentionally act wickedly yet has a capacity for moral rightness (however limited), innocent, and would argue that it makes very little sense to use the same system to assign value to the lives of innocents (non-human animals and human children) as we do to assign value to the lives of non-innocent, desirous beings such as adult humans.


One needs only a skeletal understanding of animal behavior to recognize that animals, like human beings, are aware that they exist, enjoy the benefits of a free (or perceived free) existence, and experience discontent and/or suffering when their free existence is compromised or they are subjected to pain. These intrinsically fundamental facts should be, in my opinion, the only criteria for placing comparative value on a non-human animal's life.

[Johnstuff]

Hi Lauralam.

Thats very interesting, I didn't know Singer believed in this basis for valuing humans over non-humans. Can you say what book of his says this or give a link to his arguement? (I have animal liberation and how are we to live, but don't recall him argueing that human lives have more value).

I would argue that as we are members of the human species we can not objectivly evaluate the worth of other species because our perspective is not impartial - we are biased because we see things from the human perspective.

I also belive that some non-human animals such as Eliphants and Dolphins are of similar intelligence to humans and are very self aware. They may well be aware of things that humans do not understand.

If you could ask an Eliphant what species life has the more value they may well say Eliphants.


"given a choice of saving the life of only one, human or animal, the human's life is more valuable."

In such a moral dilemma I would choose to save which ever I believed would suffer the most. I'd decide on the basis of trying to minimase the amount of suffering rather than try and evaluate the value of life.
ie. I'd sooner a human dies a quick painless death than have a dog tortured to death. I never really have to make such decisions though - thankfully.

John.

[gogs67]

I place unequal comparitive values on the worth of humans, let alone humans and non human animals. I may not totally agree 100% with the reasoning behind Singers argument but i agree with the final sentiment in a practical sense.

My family and my friends would come before a stranger if i had to make a choice who to save in a disaster situation,say! I'd try and do the best i could but there would deff be an order in which i'd prioritise.

If there was a fire in a forest and i found an injured dog beside an anthill i would carry the dog away rather than scoop up 100,000 ants and save them. Again, i have no problem with that!

I agree that in a perfect world every living thing has the same value but philosophy can be annoyingly impractical sometimes and i think PS knows that too.

[Zero]

I wouldn't even know where to start on where I disagree with Singer, there are so many points, I will have a think and post them coherently later when I am not at work, but yes unfortunately many of his views are indeed speciesist.