Singer states that many people make false assumptions about ethics. First, they assume that the study of ethics is a ―set of prohibitions particularly concerned with sex‖; second, they assume that the study of ethics is ―noble in theory but no good in practice‖; third, they assume that ethics is ―intelligible only in the context of religion‖; and lastly, they assume that ethics is ―relative or subjective.‖40 These
38 Singer, The Expanding Circle, 100.
39 Singer, Practical Ethics, 21.
40 Singer, Practical Ethics, 2.
four false assumptions about ethics provide the background to Singer‘s fuller account of what practical ethics ought to be according to the principle of equality.
The first false assumption that people make, according to Singer, is to think that ethics is a set of prohibitions particularly concerned with sex. He says this misconception about ethics and morality is still defended by Bishops and
―traditional moralists.‖41 He refers here to the preoccupation of some bioethicists with issues of sexual morality such as promiscuity, homosexuality, and pornography. Singer argues that there are more important moral issues. On this he is probably right, but this does not mean that one can dismiss religious concern for sexual morality so arbitrarily. For instance, a Bishop‘s concern regarding sexual morality might be theologically thick but still be consistent with a thin concern for general human wellbeing. A serious thinking Bishop‘s concern for sexual morality could be part of an intricately argued theory of natural law. Or perhaps, following Kant, the Bishop‘s concern over sexual issues could be driven by standard categorical imperatives. It is even possible that the Bishop‘s concern could have a utilitarian basis, such as harm minimisation, because promiscuity does increase HIV infection rates. The Bishop‘s concern for sexual morality is also consistent with a latter claim made by Singer himself:
We found that we must concede that those who hold unconventional ethical beliefs are still living according to ethical standards if they believe, for any reason, that it is right to do as they are doing.42
41 Singer, Practical Ethics, 1-2. Singer makes a similar charge against the Bishop in Rethinking Life and Death, 4.
42 Singer, Practical Ethics, 10.
Singer‘s claim that ethics is not simply a set of prohibitions particularly concerned with sex seems justified, but one should not assume that these concerns are devoid of rational thinking. Singer could argue that the Bishop‘s views are unpopular (perhaps by showing how sexual freedoms have changed) or he could highlight what he considers to be more important matters, but using the Bishop to illustrate a narrow sex-based focus of moral deliberation is disingenuous and unfairly caricatures religious scholarship.
The second false assumption that Singer challenges is that ethics is an ideal system that is noble in theory but no good in practice. This seems to be the primary motivation behind his advocacy for the principle of equality. Singer is not content to argue points of moral theory in the classroom, and few modern philosophers practise what they preach as consistently as he does. Utilitarian philosophers, at least well-known ones, seem committed to making a practical difference. Bentham made significant contributions to civil government and the legal profession, and he was actively involved in both the abolitionist movement and in the elevation of women in British society. Similarly, Mill also advocated strongly on behalf of women, he was active in developing proportional representation, and he argued strongly that the state should be constrained from asserting undue control over the liberty of an individual.
Singer sets the scene for Practical Ethics by suggesting that the failure of an ethical system based on rules does not necessarily lead to the failure of ethics as a practice. He argues that doing ethics by simple rule following is not justified
because sometimes rules need to be broken. The weakness of deontological or rule-based ethics seems obvious to utilitarian philosophers. A theory that incorporates conflicting moral duties contains a theoretical weakness because a rational agent cannot apply one moral rule without overriding another. Singer cites the familiar Jews in the attic scenario to show that when rules conflict, rational consideration becomes consequentialist. His point is that when those he calls ―traditional moralists‖ defend rules, they are really defending a particular or subjective moral code, rather than one that is both universalisable and objective.43
For Singer, a system of ethics that does not work in practice suffers from a theoretical defect, because ―the whole point of ethical judgments is to guide practice.‖44 These are important observations because they set a substantial goal for a theory of ethics that has proved difficult to achieve in the past. Significantly, the latter part of this chapter will show that Singer‘s equality principle suffices as a thin moral principle but fails when applied to complex moral issues.
The third false assumption, that ethics is intelligible only in the context of religion, is a familiar criticism, and Singer cites Plato‘s Euthyphro to defend the claim that ethics must be rationally justifiable, not simply an appeal to the gods. Singer‘s explanation of why the study of ethics should be treated independently of religion is misleading, however, because he again presents an unfair caricature of the religious position. He states that the motivation for being ethical, according to
43 Singer, Practical Ethics, 1.
44 Singer, Practical Ethics, 2.
religious ethics, is to avoid roasting in hell.45 This claim might be an appropriate description for a television evangelist, but it is not appropriate for the scholarly thinking about ethics found in many religious traditions. The Bishop, for instance, if he is Catholic, is unlikely to use the concept of hell as justification for moral behaviour. Catholic tradition does acknowledge rules and principles, but this is done on the basis of a long tradition of natural law theory in both philosophy and theology.46
According to Singer, the fourth false assumption that people make is to think that ethical claims are either subjective or relative. The bulk of Practical Ethics is devoted to explaining how rational thinking thwarts claims that ethical decision making is either subjective or relative. Singer rejects the traditional meaning of subjectivism, namely, that judgments about human conduct are limited to personal perception. He is, however, a subjectivist in the utilitarian sense because he agrees with the claim that humans have a subjective motivation to pursue pleasure and to avoid pain. But this form of subjectivism is rationally extended to a form of ethical egoism.47 This motivation promotes an initial desire for preferences or interests to be satisfied on a subjective basis. However, once humans begin to think ethically, the motivation to have one‘s own preferences satisfied ought to be extended to all relevant stakeholders. Singer does not defend ethical objectivity in the traditional sense because he claims that:
45 Singer, Practical Ethics, 4.
46 Charles E. Curran, The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: A Synthesis (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1999), 137.
47 Singer, Practical Ethics, 319-320.
Ethical truths are not written into the fabric of the universe: to that extent the subjectivist is correct. If there were no beings with desires or preferences of any kind, nothing would be of value, and ethics would lack all content. On the other hand, once there are beings with desires, there are values that are not only the subjective values of each individual being. The possibility of being led, by reasoning, to the point of view of the universe provides as much ―objectivity‖ as there can be.48
Singer agrees with Sidgwick that a rational moral agent ought to make decisions from the detached point of view of the universe:
The ethical point of view does, as we have seen, require us to go beyond a personal point of view to the standpoint of an impartial spectator. Thus looking at things ethically is a way of transcending our inward-looking concerns and identifying ourselves with the most objective point of view possible – with, as Sidgwick put it, ―the point of view of the universe.‖49
Having outlined what Singer thinks ethics should not be overly concerned with, the next section will reconstruct the way he thinks ethics should be done, once reason is allowed to play its proper role. This reconstruction will show that Singer‘s three-step process for preference-based decision making provides a useful but not definitive method of moral enquiry. It will also show that the most significant weakness of the principle of equality is that it exhibits aspects of a noble theory that does not work in practice, at least for many complex issues.
48 Peter Singer, How Are We to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self Interest (Melbourne: Text Publishing, 1993), 231.
49 Singer, Practical Ethics, 334.