Peter Singer Article

OK, a few quick notes. First, a lot of y'all might not know it, but I started out studying philosophy and I never quite stopped. (How can you?) Anyway, I came across an article about the-oh-so-controversial Peter Singer in the NYT, and I thought I'd share it with you. Singer takes utilitarianism quite seriously.

For those of you who've forgotten your philosophy or think utilitarians work on the sewer lines or power grid, here's a primer. In a moral sense, utilitarians are consequentialists; generally speaking, in a given situation, the consequences of an event (not the intentions) are what matters. And utilitarians are interested in a specific type of consequence--human happiness. But a utilitarian's definition of happiness is different than our common notion of it. Here's how J.S. Mill states it in his Utilitarianism:

The creed which accepts as the foundations of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure [II 2; cf.II 1].

So if an action (whatever its intention) improves world happiness on a global scale, it's a good thing and the moral thing to do. If that action makes the world a less happy place, then that's a bad thing and an immoral thing. Mill and friends are therefore after 'the greater good,' a phrase you no doubt have read before.

Peter Singer applies this framework to contemporary culture and consumer spending. He argues that we're using our personal (and global) resources immorally, in that we're spending it on non-essential items (dinners, movies, clothes, fancy cars) when we should be spending it to reduce world suffering. In short, the money you spent on dinner at a restaurant tonight could have saved a child from dying of dysentery. This is a simple fact. The fact that you didn't do so, he contends, means that you are, in a very real sense, immoral.

Here's one argument he proposes, and it's quoted in full in the article:

“First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.

Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.

Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.”

To reject this argument, Mr. Singer writes, “you need to find a flaw in the reasoning.”

(from The Life You Can Save, Random House, as quoted In the New York Times)

In his other work, (most notably Animal Liberation), Mr. Singer takes this argument even further; in fact, he contends that happiness doesn't just pertain to humans, but to animals as well. Therefore utilitarians, if they are to be consistent, should seek to prevent animal suffering as well. In any case, Mr. Singer always makes for an interesting debate, so I thought I'd post this up to see what y'all had to say about it.

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/books/11garn.html?ref=books
Here's Singer's webpage at Princeton: http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html