Singer's View Research Articles

The Expansion of Ethics Circle in Peter Singer's Viewpoint

Background and aim: Theories of biology about evolution of the human and his physical and mental structure had broad influences on the field of ethics. The purpose of this study is the explanation and analysis of Peter Singer's view on the expanding of ethics circle based on biological and rational foundations of universal ethics. Materials and Methods: In this narrative research, Singer's view on the expanding of ethics circle was analyzed and interperated. Findings: Emphasizing on the principles of impartiality and equality, possibility of overcoming reason on demands of biological nature, singer believes that the origin of our moral attitudes is our biological nature, but in decision makeing, one must contemplate on common moral norms. In Singer's viewpoint, limiting impartiality to human species is an arbitrary action without any rational support; the criterion of this impartial consideration is the ability of suffering and experiencing of pleasure and accordingly he expands the circle of ethics in so far as it includes most of the animals and not all of them. There is some criticisms to him such as lack of attention to the weakness of reason and human tendencies, lack of separation between the epistemological and logical function of reason in the expanding of altruism, disregarding to preferences of all creatures in expanding the circle of ethics. Conclusion: Singer's view is a moderate one; he believes that biology only caused to reflections on moral intuitions, but it cannot determine our moral norms. Accordingly, we can provide a universal and impartial ethics devoid of biological biases. Please cite this article as: Rahmati S, Kavandi S. The Expansion of Ethics Circle in Peter Singer's Viewpoint. Bioethics Journal 2017; 7(25): 83-99.

Poverty relief: philanthropy versus changing the system: a critical discussion of some objections to the ‘Singer Solution’

The aim of this paper is to present and evaluate a specific critical discussion of Peter Singer's view on philanthropy. This critique of Singer's position takes several forms, and here we focus on only two of these. First of all, it is claimed that philanthropy (based upon the giving up of luxury goods) should be avoided, because it harms the poor. As we shall see this is a view defended by Andrew Kuper. However, philanthropy is also accused of harming the poor by being sub-optimal and standing in the way of the more effective and lasting poverty relief brought about by changes in the political and economic system. This second complaint is defended by, among others, Paul Gomberg, Anthony Langlois and David Schweickart, as well as Kuper. To our knowledge, little systematic work has been done on the presentation and evaluation of theses objections to philanthropy. In what follows, the objections are dealt with in connection with private donations made by individuals, as this is the focus, and target, of the philosophers/scientists we wish to discuss.

ON HELPING ONE'S NEIGHBOR

ABSTRACTFew people doubt that severe poverty is a pressing moral issue. But what sorts of obligations, if any, do affluent people have toward the severely poor? If one accepts the idea that one has some obligations to the severely poor there still remains disagreement about the magnitude of this obligation and when it obtains. I consider Peter Singer's influential “shallow pond” argument, which holds that affluent people have greater obligations toward the severely poor than ordinary moral judgments suggest. Critics hold that Singer's view is excessively demanding and therefore untenable. I thus turn to the parable of the Good Samaritan and Christian accounts of neighbor‐love to help attenuate this criticism. Drawing from Christian conversations on neighbor‐love, I attempt to demonstrate that accepting an obligation to assist does not necessarily result in one abandoning one's special relations, abnegating self‐regard, or no longer pursuing other non‐moral strivings.

Tourism, Animals and Utilitarianism

Although tourism researchers have recently started to examine moral issues tied to the use of animals in tourism, there is much work that needs to be done. It is particularly important to introduce animal ethics theories into the tourism lexicon because of the vast number of ways the tourism industry uses animals for commercial and personal benefit. Such theories provide a basis from which to examine these uses from different vantage points. This paper employs utilitarian theory, in particular Peter Singer's views, in an attempt to more clearly understand the consequences of our use of animals in tourism. Emphasis is placed on broadly mapping the terrain of utilitarianism, identifying its central properties, examining some of the main criticisms of the theory, and exploring how utilitarian thinking can help in our consideration of the moral acceptability of certain tourism practices, especially zoos.

Peter Singer Under Fire

One of the leading ethical thinkers of the modern age, Peter Singer has repeatedly been embroiled in controversy. Protesters in Germany closed down his lectures, mistakenly thinking he was advocating Nazi views on eugenics. Conservative publisher Steve Forbes withdrew generous donations to Princeton after Singer was appointed professor of bioethics. His belief that infanticide is sometimes morally justified has appalled people from all walks of life. Peter Singer Under Fire gives a platform to his critics on many contentious issues. Leaders of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet attack Singer's views on disability and euthanasia. Economists criticize the effectiveness of his ideas for solving global poverty. Philosophers expose problems in Singer's theory of utilitarianism and ethicists refute his position on abortion. Singer's engaging Intellectual Autobiography explains how he came by his controversial views, while detailed replies to each critic reveal further surprising aspects of his unique outlook.

Os Valores da Economia Solidária

Na perspectiva de Paul Singer sobre a autogestão, está implícita uma relação de co-determinação entre a realização de práticas autogestionárias e a incorporação de valores ideológicos de Economia Solidária por parte dos trabalhadores. Este estudo critica essa relação de co-determinação a partir da fundamentação empírica de 42 entrevistas com trabalhadores de duas cooperativas de produção. Assim, identificou-se uma heterogeneidade de valores ideológicos, definida em três perfis: perfil de solidariedade, perfil de assalariamento e perfil de instrumentalização capitalista. Argumentamos que a existência desses perfis não pode ser explicada pelo modelo de co-determinação de Singer e, em contrapartida, propomos uma explicação baseada nos estudos sociológicos e de psicologia social sobre os valores de trabalho.

Superlongevity and Utilitarianism

Peter Singer has argued that there are good utilitarian reasons for rejecting the prospect of superlongevity: developing technology to double (or more) the average human lifespan. I argue against Singer's view on two fronts. First, empirical research on happiness indicates that the later years of life are (on average) the happiest, and there is no reason to suppose that this trend would not continue if superlongevity were realized. Second, it is argued that there are good reasons to suppose that there will be a certain amount of self-selection: the happiest are more likely to adopt superlongevity technology. This means that the adoption of superlongevity technology will have the effect of raising the level of aggregate utility.

WHOSE RIGHTS, AND WHAT's THE DIFFERENCE? A CRITIQUE OF BETH SINGER'S “HUMAN RIGHTS: SOME CURRENT ISSUES”

Abstract: In this article I argue against the rights‐based framework defining the abortion debate, and do so by considering the views of Beth Singer, a philosopher whose work conveys a broadly pragmatist formulation of traditional rights‐based language. Although Singer's schema presents a fruitful vantage point from which to consider the abortion question through the discourse of rights, even Singer's use of the language of rights ultimately fails adequately to address the subject. I challenge Singer's view by taking up John Dewey's concept of reflective morality, elucidated in his 1932 Ethics.

Culture of Death

To the Editor: I found reading at one sitting the letters to the editor and the case study in the January-February 2002 issue of considerably more than passing interest. Here's why. Peter Singer rather widely known for claiming that infants. .. do not have the right to life.... Several letters... concern Wesley Smith's criticism of bioethics (in part) on the grounds that Singer an important figure in the bioethics movement. Al Jonsen has defended bioethics on the grounds that Singer is a marginal and, to a great extent, a repudiated figure in the field (HCR, September-October 2001, 43) .... Jonsen and Smith appear to agree that Singer's views concerning infants are outrageous. Now notice what the commentators on the case study have to say about (what else?) a disabled infant. Baby Grace faces a life in which she will be cognitively normal, but quadriplegic and ventilator dependent. The parents want the ventilator withdrawn. Lauren

Equality Does Not Entail Equality across Species

I critique Peter Singer's view that equality across species is a natural extension of equality. Singer presents one minor and two major arguments. The first major argument is that equality across s ...

The Euthanasia Debate in Germany ‐ What's the Fuss?

ABSTRACT Both opponents and proponents of Singer's right to speak about euthanasia have concentrated on the tenability of his claims. They have ignored the question of what legitimate grounds there are for suppressing academic discussion, and have failed to take into account the discussion of freedom of speech in recent legal theory. To do this is the aim of my paper. Section I claims that Singer's position is immoral. Section 2 turns to the question of whether it is protected by freedom of speech, irrespective of its merits. I reject two lines of defence for Singer's opponents, that they had no opportunity to present their case, and the Kantian idea of the primacy of practical reason. Section 3 turns to a defence from legal theory. It argues that Singer's views do not pose the kind of threat to other legal and moral values which would license a suspension of his freedom of expression. I conclude that it is illegitimate to silence Singer, since he does not deny the right to live of his disabled opponents, but legitimate to protest against him, since he denies that some of their lives are worth living, in disregard of their own preferences.

Peter Singer on euthanasia.

In the last two decades an intense philosophical discussion of problems in medical ethics has developed. A good part of the debate centers around the circumstances of death and dying under modern conditions. Due to ad vances in surgery and increased possibilities of life-sustaining treatment, the question as to what extent life-saving measures are or are not obligatory has become an especially urgent one. In the context of these problems, some philosophers have argued for the ethical permissibility of active euthanasia. The aim of this essay is to analyze the philosophical position of one of the advocates of active euthanasia, namely Peter Singer. In the course of a heated public debate Singer's views on euthanasia have become notorious, especially in German-speaking countries. In a final section I try to show why these reactions?though in some forms clearly unacceptable?are at least understandable. I also try to show what consequences they might have for the practice of applied ethics in the future.

Das Töten von Tieren und von Föten

Abstract Singer’s ‘Practical Ethics’ is based on a form of utilitarianism which takes into account the interests of a living being if and only if it displays a minimum of rationality and (self-)consciousness. Accordingly aborting a human fetus in an early stage of development is held to be morally acceptable, whereas killing chicken, pigs, and cattle for mere culinary pleasure is not. Singer's view on abortion are refuted because they only consider the actual properties of the fetus but ignore the quality of its future life . In general the ‘principle of replaceability’ must be rejected. And although making animais suffer certainly is immoral, mere (painless) killing does not necessarily do so great a harm to them that we have to become vegetarians.

The singer's view

Journal Article The singer's view Get access Barbara Thornton Barbara Thornton Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Early Music, Volume 12, Issue 4, November 1984, Pages 523–524, https://doi.org/10.1093/earlyj/12.4.523 Published: 01 November 1984

The singer's view

The singer's view