Product Description

Love him or hate him, you certainly can't ignore him. For the past twenty years, Australian philosopher and professor of bioethics Peter Singer has pushed the hot buttons of our collective conscience. In addition to writing the book that sparked the modern animal rights movement, Singer has challenged our most closely held beliefs on the sanctity of human life, the moral obligation's of citizens of affluent nations toward those living in the poorest countries of the world, and much more, with arguments that intrigue as often and as powerfully as they incite.

Writings On An Ethical Life offers a comprehensive collection of Singer's best and most provocative writing, as chosen by Singer himself. Among the controversial subjects addressed are the moral status of animals, environmental account-ablility, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and the ultimate choice of living an ethical life. This book provides an unsurpassed one-volume view of both the underpinnings and the applications of Singer's governing philosophy.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #103096 in Books
• Published on: 2001-09-01
• Released on: 2001-09-18
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 384 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780060007447
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Amazon.com Review
Peter Singer's arguments have penetrating moral accountability that can be quite unnerving to the reader who is expecting an afternoon on the couch with a cup of coffee and a book. In fact, words like influential, controversial, and much less flattering adjectives are invariably appended to his name. There is no doubt that the first two titles apply, but whether he is deserving of the less flattering adjectives remains for readers of this book to decide. Writings on an Ethical Life collects his thoughts on practical ethics over the last 30 years into a single volume. Singer begins from the premise that "the whole point of ethical judgments is to guide practice," which may not seem very remarkable nowadays, but in its day was virtually anathema to academic ethicists, who preferred abstract theorizing to practical moral reasoning.

Singer first gained eminence for his profoundly important early work on animal rights, arguing convincingly for vegetarianism and against the commonplace cruel treatment of animals by large commercial interests. However, he has probably attracted the most notoriety for his much-maligned writings in defense of abortion rights and certain forms of euthanasia. Singer is frequently misunderstood, misquoted, and demonized. Ironically, the ferocity of his detractors--particularly during his appointment as DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University--has generated nearly unheard-of exposure for an academic philosopher. While a small portion of Singer's work has been catapulted into the limelight, lay audiences have often overlooked other equally important ideas--unfortunate, because he is a wonderfully plainspoken and powerful writer: "Where so many are in such great need, indulgence in luxury is not morally neutral, and the fact that we have not killed anyone is not enough to make us morally decent citizens of the world." It is no wonder Singer is so controversial and influential. --Eric de Place

From Publishers Weekly
While highly controversial (his appointment as professor of bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values last year unleashed a storm of protests), Singer is one of the most innovative, sensitive and honest philosophers of morality in today's world. His Animal Liberation established the modern animal rights movement, and in this new collection, Singer gathers many of his writings from the past 30 years to provide a clear view of his positions. For example, in his famous essay "Famine, Affluence and Morality," Singer argues that suffering and pain are bad and we should do all we can to prevent them. This thread, running consistently through Singer's writings, leads, for instance, to his much-debated position that we are justified in killing a severely disabled infant because the consequences of letting the baby live are more direDphysically, financially, sociallyDthan letting the baby die. Singer famously broadens this view to include animals. Inflicting pain on laboratory animals is unethical, Singer says, and charges that "all consumers of animal products are responsible for the existence of cruel practices involved in producing them." Our moral responsibility should compel us to avoid hamburgers because every time we eat one we are contributing to a cycle of suffering not only of animals, but also of humans, for the grain used to feed the animals we consume is more than enough to end hunger in many less industrialized and affluent countries. Very simply, Singer is a utilitarian and argues that the consequences of an act should determine our ethical decisions. (Dec.) Forecast: Singer, who has drawn media attention in the past for his controversial views, has a dedicated following among animal rights activists and among many physicians searching for a way to justify euthanasia of severely handicapped infants. This book makes a significant contribution to ethical discussions in modern society and will find a passionate, if small, audience.
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
Australian philosopher Singer, appointed amid great controversy to a chair in bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, here gathers selections from many of his publications to provide a more complete overview of the "practical ethics" he has been developing since the mid-70s. Singer approaches ethics as an atheist and utilitarian; he insists that Genesis cannot legitimately be used to "prove" either the sanctity of human life or the primacy of human beings over other species. In works like Ani mal Liberation (rev., 1991), Practical Ethics (2d ed., 1993), and Rethinking Life and Death (1995), he explores knotty moral concerns. His ethic is based on two fundamental principles: that no one should impose unnecessary pain on any creature capable of feeling pain; and that the signal characteristic of a "person" is an entity's awareness of itself and of its past and future. Those principles ground his often controversial opinions on speciesism, abortion, and euthanasia, as well as his conviction that the world's affluent are obligated to relieve the suffering of the world's poor. Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Customer Reviews

Fascinating, frustrating, and thought-provoking
Peter Singer is a master of taking an idea to its logical conclusion, and sometimes farther. He is controversial because he is willing to examine some of our most basic and cherished beliefs, and find the contradictions in the values which inform our everyday lives. While it is not comfortable to be so challenged, reading Singer with as open a mind as possible will help you clarify your own ethics, whether you subscribe to his or not.

Singer is not a monster, and though some of his ideas are disturbingly cold and mechanical, the majority of his ideas, and his philosophy as a whole, are deeply humane. To understand this, you must read him. Not agree with him, but read him.

How dull our lives would be if we were only exposed to comfortable ideas which reinforced our own beliefs. My beliefs have become clearer and stronger because of Singer's challenges, and I am grateful to his writings for helping me think less hypocritically about the world. I've still got leather shoes, and I still value a newborn human more than a newborn rodent, but I am also much more aware of how I spend my money and about what the choices I make in life really mean. This book is a well-edited survey of Singer's thoughts and ideas, his challenges and critiques, his justifications and juxtapositions, his philosophies.

Misunderstanding Singer
I've read many essays from Singer's books, and I can say that many of the reviewers here, I suspect not being formally trained in philosophy, have missed his points in some degree, which leads to their proposed "problems" singer has. First, if let me say this. If Singer has all of the problems that some say he has with the validity of his arguments, he would never have made it to any college, much less Princeton. What I glean from the objections to his arguments is that the readers are not fully understanding his positions, much less the technical but subtle and sound logic in them.

One writer writes that "Are we to believe that animals have a since of I or me" and "Does this mean that when an animal hurts, kills or steals from another that she should be charged with assault, murder or theft?" Of course not. Singer would never make such an outlandish assertion nor would even a first year grad student in philosophy. Another reader objects to infanticide, but the argument Singer gives-one on personhood-is sound and valid. It draws its ideas from both Judith Jarvis Thompson's essay and Michael Tooley's essay on that subject, which are both still preeminent. Singer does have some nice explanations to professional arguments on the other side too that neither Thompson nor Tooley address (because they are writing their own arguments). One of my favorite quotes on personhood and infanticide, for example, pithy, but to the point, is this: "Dropping an egg into boiling water is not the same as dropping a live chicken into boiling water" and this "The fact that Price Charles will be the king of England does not mean that he is now the King of England." In other words, infants are not the same as thinking and reasoning beings, and thinking, reasoning, self aware beings are the only beings we ascribe "personhood" to, and persons are the only "things" that get to claim an ethical right to life. If this weren't true, and Singer makes this point, then everything that lives could be said to claim a right to life. This sound reasoning is not as easily dismissed as some think. (And don't hit me on those two simple examples. Read the essays and do your own research.)

Last, one reader objects because "if one were to take seriously his premise that we ought to do whatever we can in our power to help those in dire need, no one could ethically spend a dime on anything other than "necessities" (which also raises a question about what constitutes a "necessity" versus a "luxury").

First, what he means is that if people are in dire need of no fault of their own, then we should and are morally bound to help them. If that means buying nothing more than necessities, then our moral obligations override luxuries. Think of it this way. Your mother, and I use "mother" here because that brings it right home, has cancer and needs an operation. The only way she can afford it is for you to pay for it. However, you want that new Humvee. Are you morally obligated to pay for your mother's operation rather than buy the Humvee? Singer thinks so. And the distinction between what a luxury `is' means nothing more than that.

For those reading reviews, or anything for that mattter, remeber to always look for examples when a person says X is bad. Look for what comes after that assertion. Look for examples and an explanation of WHY it is bad, and then see if the reasons add up to the objections.

I hope I have provided at least some good examples of why I think many misunderstand Singer and have provided you with at least two essays (Thompson and Tooley) for further reading on the subject of abortion and infanticide.

Groundbreaking
The people that have dissed Singer here have distorted his message by oversimplification, the kind that of thing you would expect people from those who have not read him. Singer doesn't want to get rid of retarded people, as one reviewer suggests. Singer bases some of his arguments on the distinction between person-status and mere species memebership, and Singer would definitely rate retarded people as persons.

Anyways, Singer is definitely right that the last edifice of pre-Darwinian (or pre-Copernican) thought is the idea of humnan life as intrinsically more estimable than other life, no ifs ands or buts. Singer explores the implications of this fairly, admitting that he doesn't have all the answers (no dogma here) but offering well-thought-out new proposals for action given the world view we'll have to adopt.