Ethics in the Real World: 90 Brief Essays on Things That Matter

"My selection of books is quite idiosyncratic. It’s the five best books that I’ve read in philosophy this year — but I’ve excluded more technical, academic monographs because I think it’s appropriate that we should focus on books that a general reader would find interesting. For me, Peter Singer is one of the best stylists alive in philosophy. Very few people realise this. People rarely remark on his writing style, but he is the most lucid of writers. He writes about complex matters very succinctly, very calmly, so that his writing is almost transparent to what he is saying. It is not flamboyant. It is almost invisible. He manages, in these essays, to address really deep questions in just two or three pages — often saying more than other people say in a whole book. “There’s an evangelical aspect to his philosophy, and he has many followers. ” He is controversial, of course. He’s a utilitarian thinker: he consistently emphasises that you should measure things by their consequences. He wants to make an impact on the world and has, for example, certain presuppositions about the importance of non-human, animal experience relative to human beings — assumptions that other people may not share. But whether or not you agree with him, it is very difficult to misunderstand him. His writing is so clear, and his arguments are so well expressed, that you can engage with him. For me, he is the ideal kind of philosopher to read because he’s provocative. He’s got strongly held views, which he argues for, and you know what he is arguing for. And if you agree with him, great — you’ve learned something and had it reinforced. But if you disagree, even better, because his writing forces you to think. He’s been doing that in the area of effective altruism particularly: this movement which is aiming to use charitable donations in the most efficient manner possible — identifying pound-for-pound where you can get the most effect for money spent. A number of these essays pick up on that. “Australia has produced a large number of excellent philosophers per capita. ” I don’t completely agree with that approach. But he is very stimulating. He’s thought about just about every counterargument. You need to see what he says and really think it through if you want to hold the opposite position. It is very difficult to rank philosophers against each other. It is not like we’re talking about sprinting, where you can measure who won the 100m in the Olympics or the World Championships, see their fastest time, and then say, ‘OK, Peter Singer’s the best.’ But, for me, he is certainly one of the most interesting living philosophers. Partly because he is so consistent. He is prepared to state his views, argue for them and follow through on their consequences. He is prepared to bite the bullet. When challenged, ‘Doesn’t your view lead to the consequence that under some very exceptional circumstances, some kinds of torture could be justified?’—many people would say you can’t go there. But he’ll say that it does follow. It must be so rare that such circumstances exist, but if they did and you knew they existed, then it would follow. There are lots of different forms of utilitarianism. The basic principle is that it focuses on the consequences of actions and not the intentions (though the intentions might have consequences as well — in terms of how other people perceive what you do if you express them, for instance). This is a case of somebody who, without an explicit intention to bring about people’s deaths, through their actions has done so. Utilitarianism, traditionally, looks for a currency that can measure different actions through the probable consequences and plays off those different consequences. Weighing the consequences against each other is the basic benefit of utilitarianism. Support Five Books Five Books interviews are expensive to produce. If you're enjoying this interview, please support us by donating a small amount . You can work out the best course of action because it is the one with the best consequences, or most likely to have the best consequences. So, if you take that really seriously, if you had to choose a world without apartheid, or a world without this statement from Mbeki, the world without Mbeki would be better (in terms of lives lost), even if it had apartheid. There might be other negative consequences of apartheid, there certainly were, but just on that factor, a consequentialist approach would lead to that conclusion. Obviously in some situations, the consequences are incredibly important. But the obsession with consequences can seem inhumane in many situations. It’s a kind of straightforward cost-benefit analysis, and when applied to people close to you, it seems incredibly cruel and lacking in compassion. Utilitarians find a value in compassion, but they celebrate a clinical assessment of outcomes above all. I think, in a sense, that is both the strength and weakness of the approach. The strength is that if you’re dispensing scarce resources, you probably want a clinical, distant viewpoint where people work out the best use of those scarce resources. But if you are talking about what you need for those nearest and dearest to you and somebody tells you, ‘the system doesn’t allow that,’ that seems incredibly inhumane, cruel even. It doesn’t seem to recognise the power of close individual ties. “Whether or not you agree with him, it is very difficult to misunderstand him.” I’m not sympathetic to all of Peter Singer’s conclusions, but I always admire his willingness to engage in debate with people who disagree with him. Some people have actually banned him from speaking. Not unreasonably, some disability rights movements have felt that some of the conclusions that he has drawn—about the termination of pregnancies for children known to have severe disabilities—are an attack on disability and protested very strongly. There are people who want to close him down. But he is always willing to argue. He doesn’t try and shut down the other side, he wants to have the debate. You asked me if he is the greatest living philosopher. He is certainly an exemplar of what I take the best kind of philosopher to be, which is somebody who puts forward positions and is prepared to argue for them, and to do that in a public way that allows for other people to disagree and the debate and the conversation to continue. It’s definitely true that he wants to live by the principles that he endorses. He also wants other people to do so. There’s an evangelical aspect to his philosophy, and he has many followers. Many thousands of people have been converted to vegetarianism and veganism by his arguments. Many people have also been convinced by his arguments about effective uses of charitable donations. They have led people to give up promising academic careers and go and work in the City in order to generate more income, which they can then distribute charitably. He’s triggered some extremely rich people to make very significant donations to medical research and to medical-based charities. He’s had a big effect on the world. I would be hard-pressed to think of another philosopher who’s made a comparable impact for good in the world. This is debatable, of course, because some economists say that some of the charitable donations are counterproductive. But he’s certainly generated the income, and some of his actions have undoubtedly produced very good outcomes. His critics would say that some of his pronouncements about ethics have also had terrible effects, changing people’s views about infanticide and abortion, particularly. Very few philosophers today, in Britain and America, are at risk for their philosophy. I should say Britain, America and Australia. Peter Singer is an Australian, and Australia has produced a large number of excellent philosophers per capita. People often talk of the Anglo-American tradition. I think they should talk of the Anglo-American-Australian tradition, possibly not in that order. It’s surprising how few philosophers writing today say anything that could ruffle anyone’s feathers to the extent that they would go out and try and kill you. That hasn’t been the case historically, and perhaps this could lead us to the next book."