Peter Singer

Peter Singer

Peter Singer is a renowned theorist specializing within the applied ethics discipline and currently working as a Bioethics lecturer in the institution of Princeton University (Bailey, 2000). Singer was born in the period 1946 with his higher education being completed in the year 1971 with a successful degree program in the Philosophy discipline. Singer has issued various publications in his life that have had a significant influence in the society with regard to many issues. His impact has been broadly noted within a global standard and this has led to him being ranked within the top one hundred influential individuals in the world, as conducted by the Times Magazine. Overall, Peter Singer’s writings harm humanity because they advocate for social and human degradation that consequently will lead to a non-functional community, although some of the ideas are quite useful.

The initial publication that Singer accorded, in the period 1975, offered his subjective arguments with regard to the issue of animals and ethical conducts as concerned with the same. Singer accorded his position for ethical treatment towards animals through a utilitarian perspective that holds the position “act in such a way as to maximize the expected satisfaction of interests in the world, equally considered” (Singer 14). This position parallels the economic argument for the cost benefit analysis that appreciates the duality of decisions measured in terms of positive and negative impacts. For purposes of equity, this type of analysis accords impartial considerations to the benefits and overheads accorded to an economic decision with the rule that, incase the benefits offset the overheads, then the decision should be implemented as it is beneficial to the whole society. The inverse of the relationship also stands as true in the sense that, upon the realization that the overheads are higher, then the decision is discarded due to its costliness.

Singer therefore offered the viewpoint that both humans and animals had to be accorded same preferences and treatments by the fact that both a re categorized within the animal species. Singer’s argument on animal welfare is commonly termed as speciesism and it lobbies for equitable treatment between both parties, especially within the medical field where animals are employed in various experiments. This view is harmful to the society in its level of human value degrading with individuals being ranked within the same category as animals even in terms of intelligence and decision-making. More shocking as identified by Preece is his skewed view “that if an experiment could be justified, human infants (perhaps orphans) or severely disabled humans would be in the same category as nonhuman animals” (109). Upon the release of the given statements to the public, the disabled community was enraged by the remarks and immediately effected remonstrations in various cities against the same, proving the inhume position of Singer’s views and the unconstructive effect it has on the affected individuals.

Singer’s second publication, which was availed in the period 1979, deals primarily with the discipline of applied ethics. In this book, Singer addresses the human rights and the issue of equality. A notable realization pointed out by the writer with regard to human needs relates to the issue of preferences and thereby essentiality. This view in economics is covered by the premise of marginal utility where a higher importance leads to higher marginal utility, which diminishes as the weight accorded to a given decision decreases. Therefore, Singer believes that, even with the enforcement of equity with regard to human rights, the marginal rule has to be enforced to for overall wellbeing (Singer 18). For instance, two individuals may have a similar need like money, with one of the parties bent on spending the finances on food while the other wishes to spend the same amount on educational fees. Weighting between the two options, the initial party deserves a higher and more rapid attention than the latter since ht given need accords higher attention.

Within the same publication, Singer accords a utilitarian viewpoint on the practice of abortion by according the view that the benefits for the abortion to the mother and the unborn child should be considered against each other, with the weightier side according the ethical decision in the given situation. With animals possessing the identical rights as those accorded to humans, Singer firmly holds the position that the issue of abortion, murder and euthanasia should all be supported within the same perspective (Singer 94). The economic approach to the case of wealth sharing is useful to higher community welfare but the practice of abortion has been condemned. This is based on his assertion that “a human infant has no inherent value that makes killing her wrong, for the traditional notions of the sanctity of (human) life that justify the wrongness of such an action are untenable” (Preece 70).

Singer’s low attachment to human life has been criticized by religious groups as it enhances the practice of murder while life is to be upheld as a sacred institution. In his interview conducted in the period 2000, Singer offers his ideas on social equity within the present communities, broadly categorized as the underprivileged and the wealthy, both in macro terms (nations) and in micro terms (households) (Bailey, 2000). His initial ideas with regard to the poverty experienced in various regions of the globe are founded on the premise that wealth has to be equally allocated among the populace despite what each individual owns. To Singer, the affluent need to share their excess belongings with the poor to avert cases of death due to factors like starvation or else hold liability for the demise of such individuals.

More recently, in the period 2001, Singer offered a case in support of zoophilia with the assertion that humans and animals possess an equal justification for sexual associations due to the fact that they are both categorized within the animal kingdom. Additionally, Singer draws a higher association for his position from the Darwinian school of evolution that amplifies the human and animal link in scientific terms justifying mutual attractions and sexual encounters between the two species. This is a very immoral view in a society as it leads to the low human dignity and unethical practices, while enhancing bestiality practices (Frantz 97). Therefore, Singer’s contributions may be termed as both beneficial and unconstructive, with the latter surmounting the former.

 

Works Cited

Bailey, Ronald. “The Pursuit of Happiness, Peter Singer interviewed by Ronald Bailey”. Reason Magazine, 2000. Web. 20 April 2011. <http://reason.com/archives/2000/12/01/the-pursuit-of-happiness-peter>.

Frantz, Susan. Refuting Peter Singer’s ethical theory: the importance of human dignity. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. Print.

Preece, Gordon. Rethinking Peter Singer: a Christian critique. Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Print.

Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.

Singer, Peter. In defense of animals: the second wave. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006. Print.

 

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]