Ray Ciervo Ministries

Introduction

In an article last March 2001, for the e-zine Nerve.com, Peter Singer reviewed a book on bestiality called  Dearest Pet, by Dutch writer Middas Dekker.0 Singer purported that bestiality is quite acceptable when one considers that humans are simply evolved animals and that seeking pleasure is a normal activity. Singer clearly made the point, moreover,  that no harm should come to the animal engaged in any activity. Mr. Singer’s comments were, at times, pornographic and vulgar in the strictest sense of the words. There is a sense that he wishes to shock people out of their traditional values. One of Singer’s premises is that humans are of no special import, certainly not creatures made in the “image of God.” Humans are, to him, simply evolved animals. Specifically, he believes humans are “great apes.”0 He ends this particular article with the following comment:

This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offense to our status and dignity as human beings.

                            
There is a considerable degree of subtlety in this not-so-covertly profane article. The allegation that words like “normal” and “natural” are much misused is meant to make one question their validity. More importantly, for Singer, sex with animals is no longer an “offense to our dignity,” and his idea of our status as human beings needs strict attention.

John Dolan, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota,  had this to say about Singer:

Many are concerned that respect for human life has fallen in this century and in this country. If you asked me to name a person in the English-speaking world who has contributed more to that decline than Peter Singer, I’d be stuck.   
    
This would not be as shocking or cause so much attention until one comes to realize that Peter Singer is the Australian-born Peter Singer, Ira De Camp Professor of Bioethics, the chairperson for the Center of Human Values at the notable Princeton University. Singer took the position in September of 1999, causing much concern. Local newspapers, radio talk shows, and even television covered the protests of his first class. People in wheelchairs were the main protestors. Their concern was over Singer’s position regarding their right to life.
    

Singer’s book, Practical Ethics is used as a textbook in colleges across America and throughout the world. He has written extensively on abortion, euthanasia, physician- assisted suicide, infanticide, and animal rights. Because Professor Singer holds an esteemed position at a world-class university and therefore influences not only young, vulnerable minds but also has the opportunity to influence future world leaders, an examination and evaluation of his ethics is warranted.

An Examination of Peter Singer’s Ethics

    

General Overview

    

Peter Singer’s ethics involve reasoning between conflicting situations. He admits his view is not the only possible view, “. . . but it is a plausible view.”0 Singer asks the important questions:
What is it to make a moral judgment, or to argue about an ethical issue, or to live according to ethical standards? How do moral standards differ from other practical judgments? Why do we regard a woman’s decision to have an abortion as raising an ethical issue, but not her decision to change her job? What is the difference between a person who lives by ethical standards and one who doesn’t?0

So how does Singer understand how ethical judgments are made? His final standard is “the equal consideration of others.” How he gets to that is interesting, to say the least; it is somewhat amusing. Singer says we must go beyond ourselves, that self- interest is not enough:
From ancient times, philosophers and moralists have expressed the idea that ethical conduct is acceptable from a point of view that is somehow universal. The “Golden Rule” attributed to Moses, to be found in the book of Leviticus and subsequently repeated by Jesus, tells us to go beyond our own personal interests and “love thy neighbor as thyself”  —  in other words, give the same weight to the interests of others as one gives to one’s own interests.

Singer goes on to mention the Stoics, Kant’s “categorical imperative,” eighteenth- century philosophers Hutcheson, Hume, and Adam Smith as all appealing to an “imaginary spectator.” He mentions numerous other philosophers who all somewhat agree that ethics is in some sense universal. According to Singer’s interpretation of these philosophers, an ethical principle cannot be justified in relation to any partial or sectional group. Ethics takes a universal point of view. However, this does not mean that a particular ethical judgment must be universally applicable. Singer is careful not to agree with a deontological view of ethics. He is also careful not to use the phrase “objective ethical standard.”

However, Singer maintains that ethical judgments must be made from a universal point of view. “I am accepting that my own interests cannot, simply because they are my interests, count more than the interests of anyone else.”0 What Singer is referencing is an objective ethical standard, one that is outside of himself. To illustrate, he imagines that he has harvested a large amount of fruit. He must now decide whether he should eat all the fruit or share it with others in need. He begins to think “ethically”:

 

Suppose I begin to think ethically, to the extent of recognising that my own interests cannot count for more, simply because they are my own, than the interests of others. In place of my own interests, I now have to take into account the interests of all those affected by my decision. This requires me to weigh up all these interests and adopt a course of action most likely to maximize the interests of those affected.

Singer also maintains that not all decisions are ethical ones and only in the most serious circumstances must one adopt an ethical form of reasoning. Singer’s ethics are a form of utilitarianism, and “best consequences” is his interpretation of what furthers the interests of others in addition to simply increasing pleasure and minimizing pain.

Singer posits that utilitarianism is the simplest and most straightforward ethical system. He maintains that the burden of proof is on those who would go “beyond” utilitarianism to prove the necessity for a more complex system:

 

If we are to be persuaded so that we should go beyond utilitarianism and accept non-utilitarian moral rules or ideals, we need to be provided with good reasons for taking this further step. Until such reasons are produced, we have some grounds for remaining utilitarians.

At least on the surface, Singer approaches other ethical systems and lets the reader decide for himself whether utilitarianism works best. This is admirable and leads to looking into what positive qualities Peter Singer has and what positive contributions he has made to the field of practical ethics.

    The Good

It would be inappropriate to discuss Peter Singer’s ethics without acknowledging his positive qualities and contributions to the field of ethics. This would include his activism in the field of animal rights and humanitarian relief efforts. When asked what he would like to be known for, Singer responded, “I guess I’d like to take a role in reducing the amount of suffering in the world.”0 This quote is representative of Singer’s ethics. As a utilitarian, Singer wishes to increase pleasure (i.e. happiness) and reduce suffering. At least on the surface, this is admirable.

Peter Singer is a secular humanist, by his own admission. However, he considers himself one who holds to absolutes. As far as ethics is concerned, he is against relativism and situation ethics.

That ethics is always relative to a particular society has most implausible consequences. If our society disapproves of slavery, while another society approves of it, we have no basis to choose between these conflicting views.

Singer goes on to say that a society which holds to a relative or situation view of ethics has no way of telling right from wrong or what is true or not true. This is insightful. He is implying a universal understanding of right and wrong. Without disclosing the origin of the universal, he manages to imply the need for it. Using examples of how a society could believe in slavery because the majority find it necessary for the good of the society, he also shows how reformers would have to be considered unethical if they were to go against the society. By this argument, he sinks the argument for ethical relativism.

Although there are extremes represented by organizations which stand for animal rights, Peter Singer makes some points which must be credited. Singer is not opposed to using animals for experimentation if it would result in saving the life or lives of humans.0 What Singer is opposed to is the experimentation on animals for products which are marketed for commercial gain. These experiments are not necessary to prevent human suffering, especially when there are other means of getting the required results. He asks, “Don’t we already have enough shampoos?”0 He cites experiments like the “Draize test,” where concentrations of chemicals are dripped into the eyes of rabbits to test for irritation from shampoos. Whether one agrees with his position or not, one is required to credit the argument concerning undue cruelty.

 Singer addresses the idea that ethics is not primarily about sexual behavior but that ethics must be applied to all of life. Although he downplays the role of ethics in sexual behavior, he admits it is part of the scope of ethics. However, he dismisses Judeo-Christian ethics concerning this issue.    

 Probably one of the most notable aspects of Peter Singer’s ethics in a positive sense is his commitment to helping victims of famine and/or other natural disasters.0 In fact, he revealed that he has often worked alongside Christian organizations helping famine victims.

Peter Singer has serious concern for the environment  —  not as a worshiper of nature, but as one who wants to steward the resources “nature” has provided. He is decidedly anti-capitalistic and therefore against the act of destroying primitive forests, not to mention the habitat of animals, for monetary gain. These things he terms “senseless.”    

Lastly, Singer acknowledges that it is not enough to espouse an ethical theory; one must also live ethically. Professor Singer is not an ivory tower ethicist. As noted, he is involved in several areas of ethical concern. His book  Animal Liberation jump-started the animal rights movement in the 1970s. His books are thoroughly practical, giving examples of how one is to apply ethical decisions. This is admirable. He has little patience for the espousal of ideas without practical application.

It should be noted that Peter Singer’s ethics, or at least the outworking of his ethics, are not simple but complex. Singer is trying to provide a universal ethic to satisfy the needs of humanity living in the world. His strengths lie in the idea that he seeks for a universal ethic. However, as it comes to light, it will be revealed that at best it is an appeal to a combination of utilitarianism and natural law.

The Evil

The evil of Peter Singer’s ethics results from his attempt to justify equality among persons. On the surface, this seems like an admirable goal. In and of itself it may be. However, it is in the very aspect of determining what personhood is that Singer opens a can of malicious worms.

As a utilitarian, Singer is looking to increase pleasure and decrease suffering. For him, as a utilitarian, the end justifies the means. In what way can the greatest amount of pleasure be increased and the greatest amount of suffering decreased?

As Singer’s argument unfolds, there are several pieces which must be identified. What is pleasure? What is suffering? Who or what experiences both pleasure and suffering, and how do we know when they are experiencing them?

According to Singer, ethics is comprised of interests. “When I make an ethical judgment, I must go beyond a personal or sectional point of view and take into account the interests of all those affected.”0 What he appeals to here is an ethic which is beyond oneself and in the interest of all those affected. A person should not look out for the interests of himself, his ethnicity, his nationality, or his species.0 He establishes this perspective as the “equal consideration of interests.” This is his absolute when it is applied to increasing the amount of pleasure and decreasing or minimizing the amount of suffering.

For Singer, pleasure is that which a being would enjoy, and suffering is that which a being does not enjoy. One is sought; the other is avoided. Now what Singer must do is establish how one knows that a being is enjoying or not enjoying. Before considering all beings enjoying pleasure and avoiding suffering, Singer establishes personhood.

Singer draws on an unusual source to establish his premise of the difference between human beings and human persons. Quoting Joseph Fletcher, the “father” of situation ethics, Singer puts forth his idea for personhood:

There is another use of the term “human,” one proposed by Joseph Fletcher, a Protestant theologian and a prolific writer on ethical issues. Fletcher has compiled a list of what he calls, “indicators of humanhood” that include the following: self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication and curiosity.0

Using this definition, Singer affirms that definitions of human beings and human persons overlap but do not coincide. Embryos, later fetuses, the profoundly intellectually disabled child, and even the newborn infant are indisputably members of the species called Homo sapiens, human beings, but none fit the description above and, therefore, they are not human persons. In fact, persons do not have to be human. If a member of another species has the capacities mentioned in Fletcher’s description, Singer grants them personhood. Although he does not mention intelligent aquatic mammals such as dolphins or whales, he seems particularly interested in the great apes. Asked whether non-humans could be persons, Singer responds in the affirmative.
    
The great apes, notably chimpanzees and gorillas, have been taught to communicate using American Sign Language, the language of the hearing-impaired.0 Discussing experimental situations, Singer affirms that these apes retain self-awareness, memory, and consciousness of the future. These conclusions were derived through “conversations” with the animals. He, therefore, attributes to them personhood.

Next, Singer extends his maxim, the equal consideration of interests, not only to all human persons, but to all persons. He then extends it to all species. “To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.”0 For Singer, it is irrational for humans to favor human life over all animal life. His insistence is based on the premise that humans are animals, too.

He says that favoring one species over another comes from western Christian heritage. Because the Bible teaches that all humans have an eternal destiny, people were hesitant to end someone’s life because they would consign them to either heaven or hell. Secondly, the belief came from the understanding that humans were created by God, in the image of God, and therefore His property. Killing a human being was “usurping God’s right to decide when we shall live and when we shall die.”

According to Singer, there is no intrinsic value in the life of a human being. Neither a snail nor a newborn has hopes for the future. Neither of them has desires for greatness; therefore, they have no desire for pleasure. Killing either of them does not thwart any desire. According to Singer, there is no moral wrong in doing so.

Because of this view, Professor Singer sees nothing wrong with abortion on demand at any stage of the life of the unborn. Euthanizing severely mentally or physically challenged individuals is also an option. He would not openly say that a physically challenged individual should be euthanized. However, if at birth a child appeared with severe physical challenges, he would see nothing wrong with terminating the life of the child. He would argue that the child could suffer not being able to achieve all that one who is not physically challenged could accomplish:

 

Perhaps the best one can say  —  and it is not very good  —  is that there is nothing directly wrong in conceiving a child who will be miserable, but once such a child exists, since its life can contain nothing but misery, we should reduce the amount of pain in the world by an act of euthanasia.

    

It is clear that Singer believes in killing human beings. His ethic is clearly based on what a being can do rather that on what a being is. There is, for him, no intrinsic value in being human. It is simply what the being does, not what it is capable of, that gives it value. Non-speaking animals, including human babies, have no utilitarian value. 

What about arguments against his system of ethics? Does Singer entertain or discuss any opposing views in detail and test out his ethics? Singer briefly dismisses relativism as an indefensible ethic. Nowhere in his centerpiece, Practical Ethics, does he present opposing views. It is in How Are We To Live? that he briefly presents two alternative views. The two he presents are that of deontology presented by Immanuel Kant and the reward-based ethics of Jesus.

Singer rejects the idea that there is an objective moral law for humans to discover and obey. He rejects Kant’s categorical imperative that one should act only in a way which can be universally applied.0 His main contention with deontological ethics is that it is a closed system. Once one accepts an objective standard, he ceases to think about other possibilities. Therefore, he rejects the idea that there are rules for living which can always be applied.

Singer proposes that Jesus’ ethics consisted of simply reward and punishment. He posits that Christianity is built on obeying God out of fear of punishment.0 He continually cites verses where Jesus tells His listeners that they must obey or else be punished.  Joy is found in obedience, for this life will end and those that obey will find happiness in the next life. Singer reduces the teaching of the four gospels to no more than three pages. 

    

Singer’s Ethics

So what is Peter Singer’s ethical system? Singer is a utilitarian. The end of a decision justifies the means. To find an absolute, Singer posits what he calls “equal consideration of interests.”  What he means by that is that everyone’s interests must be taken into account in the realm of increasing pleasure and minimizing pain. It is clear that the interests of the unborn, severely handicapped, and elderly are not considered. However, the interests of animals, those that are persons, and those that are not must also be taken into account. The goal of it all is to increase pleasure and minimize pain in the context of their interests. The decisions people make in life ought to be according to that maxim.

Admittedly, this is a simplified explanation of Peter Singer’s ethics. What follows is a discussion that evaluates his ethics.

An Evaluation of Peter Singer’s Ethics

    The Natural Law

Although Singer is a utilitarian, he does have an absolute rule. That rule is the “equal consideration of interests.” However, the interests to be considered are the ones which are important to Singer. He is the one that establishes the criteria for personhood and, as a true utilitarian, judges personhood by what one does – not what one is. There Singer confuses what a being is with what a being does. This shall be addressed more fully later in the discussion.

Singer’s “equal consideration of interests” is first based on a universal premise he wishes to ignore as “natural law.” Singer knows well the argument that recognition of natural law will lead to a natural law-giver. Since he is an avowed atheist, he cannot take that route. However, he recognizes that this universal is common in societies all over the world and throughout all of time.

He also carefully refuses to acknowledge that his universal rule is also an objective moral standard. Again, he cannot pursue where this standard came from but simply acknowledges that it is there.

Singer scarcely mentions natural law; he simply says there are too many issues to make decisions on for natural law to be considered.0

    Race and Species

Singer makes a huge categorical mistake when he says:

 

To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.

It is not clear whether he is trying to make people feel guilty for not preferring another species to our own or that he simply does not see the difference. The human races have different physical characteristics. However, to imply that preferring members of your race is the same as preferring members of your species is a fundamental confusion of categories. Races and species are different categorically. All other animals prefer their own species; it appears common sense to say it is part of a natural order. To imply that because he believes humans are animals, “we ought not to discriminate against other species,” is again appealing to an objective moral standard, a natural law.

    Equal Consideration of Interests

The Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is one that mankind would do well to abide by. However, when the Golden Rule is translated to the equal consideration of interests and then extended to animals of all sorts, it loses its sanity. Is a toothache in a pig to be equally compared to a toothache in a child, or an adult for that matter? If both are of equal pain, ought both to be considered equally? If the pain in the pig is greater, ought the pig to get primary consideration? As one of Singer’s critics asked, “What about a toothache in a rat?” Should rats get equal consideration of interests with humans?

The equal consideration of interests is not, in fact, the same as the “Golden Rule.” To equate them is actually an “illicit conversion,” meaning they are not interchangeable. For everyone’s interests to be considered is not the same as doing to others as you would have them do to you. The weight of the equal consideration of interests is on whether pleasure will outweigh suffering or misery. The interests are in increasing pleasure and minimizing pain. Singer assumes that everyone would seek pleasure in every circumstance and not choose suffering, and that suffering is always the wrong choice. For Singer, pleasure is an end in itself. However, one is persuaded to believe pleasure is defined here in a hedonistic sense and not in the classical Greek sense of happiness as the end for which you were made. Singer’s equal consideration of interests is lacking.

    Kant and Jesus

Singer misrepresents Scripture to make his point about Jesus’ teaching. Although his summation of Immanuel Kant is adequate, he thoroughly misrepresents the teaching of the New Testament.0 He positions the New Testament teaching on ethics as solely a reward/punishment based teaching. Although there are rewards given to Christians who obey the Lord, he fails to mention that the New Testament also states those rewards are cast down at Jesus’ feet. 0 This is simply not a commercial enterprise where Christians seek rewards but where their rewards are given back to God as the One who enabled them to accomplish anything worthy of rewards.

Singer is anti-Christian. He blames all economical inequities on Christian teaching, mainly from the Reformation.0 The Protestant work ethic, he maintains, has produced inequity of finances. The fact that people work for money, and aggressive people aggressively work for money, seems to be a problem to him. He sees the command given in the Garden of Eden  as the rape of the environment.0  He interprets the creation verses of Genesis 1 and 2 as giving people license to destroy or have disregard for the environment. Both are misinterpretations of Scripture. 

    What a Being Is and What a Being Does

Singer places no intrinsic value on life unless it performs according to the standards he has acknowledged. The question to ask Professor Singer is, “How do you  know that a fetus does not have desires? How do you know that a fetus is not experiencing pleasure or suffering? Even among those who are mentally handicapped and cannot express pleasure or suffering, how do you know that they are not experiencing those sensations without expressing them?”

For someone who espouses an evolutionary model of existence, Singer presumes there is some sort of perfection that humans must attain. He implies that the mentally handicapped will not live up to their potential for happiness. To what standard is he appealing when he does that? If he says the majority of people observed appear to be living at a certain level, how does he know that is normal?  It appears there is an objective standard to which he appeals. How does he know that there should not be a certain number of humans that are mentally handicapped and that this fulfills somehow the requirement for total humanity? If he is not appealing to some objective reality, why ought he to be the judge of what should happen to the mentally handicapped? Singer’s problem is that he has left the realm of reality, of objective moral standards, and created his own. Only he has not completely left the objective standard. He refers to it constantly.

When Singer says there is a difference between what a Homo sapiens is and what a person is, the difference is completely arbitrary. He has left out the difference between  what a thing is and what a thing does. In one sense this coincides with his utilitarian system of ethics. He is acknowledging personhood, and therefore value, by what something does. However, to ignore the potential of unborn children or infants, to say they have no desires or pleasures, is ignorant or arrogant or both. How does he know this? Simply, he does not. He is making conjectures that only find their basis in rationalizing his ethical system.

Mark Foreman states a very clear difference between someone whose brain has ceased and someone whose brain has not yet begun to function, at least function up to maturity:

 

In fact, there is a big difference between “brain death” and “no brain yet.” A dead person has lost the natural inherent capacity to live. The brain does not have the capacity to work because it has irreversibly ceased  —  it is dead. However, the unborn has not lost the natural inherent capacity to live. The capacity is still there from conception and is still living. Therefore, the absence of brain activity is not necessarily the same as the death of the brain.    

 

Singer does not see this difference, but sees worth only in what something does, how it performs or its potential to perform. What Singer is missing is a clear sense of “being.”  What a thing is refers to its being, not what it does. For instance, take the example of two pennies. One is perfect, in mint condition. It shines and every intentional mark is clearly visible. The other is scratched, dull, and has lost its luster. Is one worth more than the other? Perhaps only to a collector who puts arbitrary value on newness. To the US government they are worth the same. Why? Because their worth is determined by their representing a portion of the US Treasury. One could say they participate in the US Treasury. Human beings have worth because they participate in the One Being, namely God. They are being like God. They are not God or part of God by participating in Him but represent Him to the degree they are made in His image and likeness. Everything that is “being” is like God in a certain sense that it is “being” also. However, humans are made in God’s image and therefore given specific value. It is clear that Singer has no metaphysical perspective other than utilitarianism. Reality, for him, is based on what something does.

        Summary and Conclusion

Singer confuses race and species. This is an elementary error. To say that the differences between Asians and Caucasians is the same as the differences between chimpanzees and humans is naive or stupid. Even in a biological sense, the differences can be told  —  even if the genetic difference is only 1 percent. A 1 percent difference may indicate closeness, but it is not sameness. The 1 percent is an enormous difference in appearance, intelligence, accomplishments, and reproductive abilities.  

Chimpanzees and humans have similar appearances in some ways but do not look alike. Each has two feet, two hands, two ears, two eyes, and so on. However, there are few people, if any, who cannot tell the difference between a human and a chimpanzee. Chimpanzees are considered intelligent among primates or other lower-order animals. However, when considered in the realm of problem-solving, they cannot solve complex mathematical problems. Neither can they solve simple mathematical problems. They may use tools, but they have not built bridges, excavated tunnels, constructed skyscrapers, nor even built a simple house. Neither can chimpanzees and humans produce offspring with each other that constitutes a hybrid.  Chimpanzees are essentially different from human beings.

Singer’s equal consideration of interests becomes absurd when he extends it to take in the animal world. He would have great difficulty convincing mothers their children’s illnesses need to take a back seat to the illnesses of pigs, dogs, chickens, and apes.

If Peter Singer is sincere about considering other ethical systems,  he ought to represent the opposing views more honestly. His reference works were not footnoted correctly, and many of his references lacked publishers, pages, and years published. His treatment of New Testament teaching lacked scholarship and proper scrutiny.
    

His lack of value regarding human life unless it functions according to standards he has imposed is erroneous in that it is as subjective as relativism. He has arbitrarily decided what personhood is and has then extended it to the great apes, leaving behind humans who cannot meet his standards. Although he appeals to a universal, it is one that lacks personhood itself. It is a rule which is unrelated to any goodness, justice, or mercy.

Because of this, Peter Singer has become the harbinger of ungodly ethics which support abortion on demand, infanticide, euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide. What Peter Singer needs is for someone to take him to task and have him defend his position against a theistic ethic that is grounded in the person of God, where value comes from God and is not arbitrarily contrived.

Sermon Archive

Sermon Podcast

• August 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008

More Sermons