What do you think?
Rate this book
Een ethisch leven
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
440 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
90 people are currently reading
1192 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
186 books10.9k followersPeter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty.
Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.
Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
March 17, 2019
If a critical mass of people with new priorities were to emerge, and if these people were seen to do well, in every sense of the term -- if their cooperation with each other brings reciprocal benefits, if they find joy and fulfillment in their lives -- then the ethical attitude will spread, and the conflict between ethics and self-interest will have been shown to be overcome, not by abstract reasoning alone, but by adopting the ethical life as a practical way of living and showing that it works, psychologically, socially, and ecologically...
One thing is certain: you will find plenty of worthwhile things to do. You will not be bored or lack fulfillment in your life. Most important of all, you will know that you have not lived and died for nothing, because you will have become part of the great tradition of those who have responded to suffering by trying to make the world a better place.
[here]
I've read a lot of Singer, mostly papers and columns and distilled arguments, not books. I can't remember not wanting to life an altruistic life, so I don't know exactly how much influence he had on me - but I'm a tithing vegan with a lot of respect for evolutionary arguments, who bites many utilitarian bullets, so it's probably plenty.
Clear, unflinching, inspiring. Reading this, it's easy to see why the heroes of a fantasy novel could be called Singers.
---
PS: Can anyone explain why, alone amongst philosophers, his face is so often on his book covers? Just fame? Just his strong brand?
October 7, 2020
A good anthology of Singer's most fascinating and convincing essays, taken from books and opinion pieces of his.
He's not shy of a challenge and attempts to address topics wide-ranging as abortion, the environment, euthanasia, and charity. Despite this breadth, his core reasoning is quite small and well-defined, and so the arguments for each of these topics share a lot in common, making this mostly an easy whilst thought-provoking read. I particularly enjoyed his clinical discussion of infanticide - not an easy topic, but one that naturally follows from his philosophy of preference utilitarianism.
His style is a bit obtuse at times, and he almost always uses far too many words. Some essays should have not been included as they add very little. Regardless, I learnt a lot from reading this. Strongly recommended.
He's not shy of a challenge and attempts to address topics wide-ranging as abortion, the environment, euthanasia, and charity. Despite this breadth, his core reasoning is quite small and well-defined, and so the arguments for each of these topics share a lot in common, making this mostly an easy whilst thought-provoking read. I particularly enjoyed his clinical discussion of infanticide - not an easy topic, but one that naturally follows from his philosophy of preference utilitarianism.
His style is a bit obtuse at times, and he almost always uses far too many words. Some essays should have not been included as they add very little. Regardless, I learnt a lot from reading this. Strongly recommended.
September 25, 2010
I've heard so much about Peter Singer, I thought it was time to find out for myself what he was about. This book is a collection of Singer's most significant writings - so a great one-stop shop in the intellectual marketplace for all things Singer. Featured prominently are his writings on Animal Liberation, Saving and Taking Life (including a section on Justifying Infanticide), and Living Ethically.
All of Singer's work rests on these four presumptions:
1. Pain is bad, no matter whose pain it might be. But inflicting pain is not always wrong; it could be justified if it leads to less suffering. Pleasure and happiness are good.
2. Humans are not the only beings capable of feeling pain.
3. When considering how serious it is to take a life we should consider the characteristics of the individual being killed (e.g. its desires to continue living, the kind of life it is capable of leading).
4. We are not only responsible for what we do but what we could have prevented.
While Singer raises some important, difficult questions that weren't so easy to answer, I was disappointed. I didn't agree completely with his presumptions, thought he was overly rigid in considering and rejecting the sanctity of life ethic, and found the reasoning that led to his conclusions problematic, and the conclusions themselves troubling. The conclusions I had the biggest problem with were his justifications for infanticide and that under certain conditions animals were more entitled to protection or had more a right to life than human beings. It is odd that a utilitarian never stopped to consider if what he was proposing would do more harm than good. He seemed so intent on dismantling the current sanctity of (human) life ethics that it was like it never crossed his mind to consider it. Another oddity is that Singer's conclusions, if embraced by society, would lead to a drastic shift in how we live and relate to each other. However, he made little effort to articulate how his positions could be made workable at a societal level. I have a hard time seeing how it could work and Singer focused so much on personal view of ethics, societal concerns get short shrift. (I should say that I disfavor utilitarian ethics generally. Part of my problem is that calculations weighing pain and pleasure are frequently short-sighted and too often self-interested. Singer's book only strengthened this objection.)
Even though I gave this book a low rating, it is worth a read, just to understand where he's coming from. His chapters on life and death were the most challenging in a number of respects. Whether you disagree with him or find him persuasive, he will sharpen your thinking on some important issues.
All of Singer's work rests on these four presumptions:
1. Pain is bad, no matter whose pain it might be. But inflicting pain is not always wrong; it could be justified if it leads to less suffering. Pleasure and happiness are good.
2. Humans are not the only beings capable of feeling pain.
3. When considering how serious it is to take a life we should consider the characteristics of the individual being killed (e.g. its desires to continue living, the kind of life it is capable of leading).
4. We are not only responsible for what we do but what we could have prevented.
While Singer raises some important, difficult questions that weren't so easy to answer, I was disappointed. I didn't agree completely with his presumptions, thought he was overly rigid in considering and rejecting the sanctity of life ethic, and found the reasoning that led to his conclusions problematic, and the conclusions themselves troubling. The conclusions I had the biggest problem with were his justifications for infanticide and that under certain conditions animals were more entitled to protection or had more a right to life than human beings. It is odd that a utilitarian never stopped to consider if what he was proposing would do more harm than good. He seemed so intent on dismantling the current sanctity of (human) life ethics that it was like it never crossed his mind to consider it. Another oddity is that Singer's conclusions, if embraced by society, would lead to a drastic shift in how we live and relate to each other. However, he made little effort to articulate how his positions could be made workable at a societal level. I have a hard time seeing how it could work and Singer focused so much on personal view of ethics, societal concerns get short shrift. (I should say that I disfavor utilitarian ethics generally. Part of my problem is that calculations weighing pain and pleasure are frequently short-sighted and too often self-interested. Singer's book only strengthened this objection.)
Even though I gave this book a low rating, it is worth a read, just to understand where he's coming from. His chapters on life and death were the most challenging in a number of respects. Whether you disagree with him or find him persuasive, he will sharpen your thinking on some important issues.
January 26, 2019
A must read for anyone interested in ethical questions. Kept me thinking throughout my read.
July 23, 2013
"Love him or hate him..." is such a cliché, but I found myself repeating that line in my head, over and over, as I scoured through the book's shocking and powerful essays.
Peter Singer advocates uncompromising positions, but unlike most fanatics (most notably of religious persuasion), his approach is one of clear logic and quiet reason. It has all the more deadly force because it persuades and bends, in silent fatality, the reader's will.
Animal Rights is just one, although unarguably the most famous, of Singer's sanguine obsessions.
This book collects arguments and essays from different books. Some of his atheistic moral teachings follow a more "Christian" tone - easy to swallow but onerous to follow through - such as the call for Westerners to eschew luxury to donate most of their income to Third World charity. But many of the other essays are undoubtedly shocking, at least to conventional morality.
How about the case for the post-birth killing ("abortion") of freshly delivered babies? How about the case for a "Darwinian Left" as a replacement of feel-good leftism (perhaps my favourite essay in the entire collection)? How about the justification for an active euthanasia of elderly people who lack the will to live? How about the valuation of chimpanzees over brain-dead humans and retarded infants?
In all of those cases, Singer is brutally honest and yet reasonable. This book offers the best (and the worst) of what utilitarian logic has to offer. Singer's principles, if accepted, would change the way we do morality and politics.
I wasn't left convinced in EVERY case - certainly not in the case of post-natal abortions of handicapped children - but even where I disagreed, I have to admit the force of his arguments, and our disagreements are largely empirical ("when do babies begin to develop consciousness?"). Such is the power of good science.
At the same time, one could launch a more principled, philosophical case against utilitarianism per se. It would also be a fruitful endeavour. Anybody who wishes to be spellbound, infuriated or shocked by Singer will probably end up all three.
Peter Singer is an important philosopher and everybody should read this book.
Peter Singer advocates uncompromising positions, but unlike most fanatics (most notably of religious persuasion), his approach is one of clear logic and quiet reason. It has all the more deadly force because it persuades and bends, in silent fatality, the reader's will.
Animal Rights is just one, although unarguably the most famous, of Singer's sanguine obsessions.
This book collects arguments and essays from different books. Some of his atheistic moral teachings follow a more "Christian" tone - easy to swallow but onerous to follow through - such as the call for Westerners to eschew luxury to donate most of their income to Third World charity. But many of the other essays are undoubtedly shocking, at least to conventional morality.
How about the case for the post-birth killing ("abortion") of freshly delivered babies? How about the case for a "Darwinian Left" as a replacement of feel-good leftism (perhaps my favourite essay in the entire collection)? How about the justification for an active euthanasia of elderly people who lack the will to live? How about the valuation of chimpanzees over brain-dead humans and retarded infants?
In all of those cases, Singer is brutally honest and yet reasonable. This book offers the best (and the worst) of what utilitarian logic has to offer. Singer's principles, if accepted, would change the way we do morality and politics.
I wasn't left convinced in EVERY case - certainly not in the case of post-natal abortions of handicapped children - but even where I disagreed, I have to admit the force of his arguments, and our disagreements are largely empirical ("when do babies begin to develop consciousness?"). Such is the power of good science.
At the same time, one could launch a more principled, philosophical case against utilitarianism per se. It would also be a fruitful endeavour. Anybody who wishes to be spellbound, infuriated or shocked by Singer will probably end up all three.
Peter Singer is an important philosopher and everybody should read this book.
January 7, 2022
Fascinating mental gymnastics, the experience of reading this book feels like constantly being triggered - but Singer holds the space to examine *why*. We as a society accept some habits as truths, and we shouldn't. I recommend this book to anyone with an opinion on anything.
October 16, 2025
It's hard not to give this book five stars since it's probably had the biggest impact on my life of any book ever. I can credit Singer with opening my eyes to animal ethics, and discarding at least aspects of my previous, self-interest-based, cognitive dissonance. For this reason I think everybody should read this book.
I found Peter's work on animal ethics very interesting, as well as his work on the ethics of global poverty, and some bits of bioethics. He has a refreshingly straightforward approach to ethics, using simple but precise language, and a sound framework. He is certainly one of the most influential modern philosophers and can be credited with the advent of a number of (primarily utilitarian-focused) social movements. It was interesting to read parts of his ideas as they were written when the movements were not yet movements, only ideas. In this infancy I think there's a wonderful purity to these arguments, not yet polluted by the ways of public discourse.
I couldn't quite give it five stars because the book felt overall a little disorganised. Many sections repeated themselves because they were of course from different books, and many sections, particularly towards the end, were a bit dry. HOWEVER, I think the excerpts from Animal Liberation and Famine Affluence and Poverty could be the most positively consequential words any philosopher has written in the last century, and everyone should read them.
I found Peter's work on animal ethics very interesting, as well as his work on the ethics of global poverty, and some bits of bioethics. He has a refreshingly straightforward approach to ethics, using simple but precise language, and a sound framework. He is certainly one of the most influential modern philosophers and can be credited with the advent of a number of (primarily utilitarian-focused) social movements. It was interesting to read parts of his ideas as they were written when the movements were not yet movements, only ideas. In this infancy I think there's a wonderful purity to these arguments, not yet polluted by the ways of public discourse.
I couldn't quite give it five stars because the book felt overall a little disorganised. Many sections repeated themselves because they were of course from different books, and many sections, particularly towards the end, were a bit dry. HOWEVER, I think the excerpts from Animal Liberation and Famine Affluence and Poverty could be the most positively consequential words any philosopher has written in the last century, and everyone should read them.
January 21, 2020
Interesting views, especially those on infanticide and specieism.
October 8, 2020
Writings on an Ethical Life by Peter Singer is a collection of essays examining ethics. Singer is an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. Singer is well known in the Animal Rights community. He is to animal rights what Richard Dawkins is to evolution and atheism, but seemingly kinder and less bellicose. I was expecting a re-hash of Animal Liberation, and there are portions of that book in this collection, but I received a much more human to human ethics lesson.
Many of the essays examine ethics with the use of thought experiments. The idea that we can easily recognize something as being wrong, yet fail to see the same thing in our everyday lives. Utilitarianism is looked at and examined from different angles as well. Social issues like abortion, wealth distribution, starving children, and animal rights are all examined.
Since it is a collection of essays, the topics cover a wide range of subjects under the general umbrella of ethics. The definition of ethics itself is discussed and compared. The search for a one size fits all code of ethics is discussed as well as the roots of Western (Christian) ethics, which has itself evolved over time. Utilitarianism is discussed as the once possible standard. As much as the idea of providing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people sounds good on the surface, it has a darker side. Typical thought experiments deal with the idea of killing some people so that a majority can survive -- a few suffer (die) so the majority can live would fall into the realms of utilitarianism. Take it a step further into a real world example. China's one-child policy as a method to control population and allow for enough resources for the population was considered barbaric by some because it leads to abortion (another ethical question) and infanticide. To borrow a pop-culture phrase, "Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? "
As much as we like to think there is a clear and well-defined ethical code we often miss what is in front of us. Singer uses an example of a man who buys a rare car as a retirement investment. He can't insure it and plans to sell it to cover his retirement cost. He drives it occasionally and one day he is out and a situation develops where he has a choice of saving his car or saving a child on some railroad tracks, but not both. He chooses to save his car. Of course, this is meant for the reader to show outrage at the actions of the man. How could anyone choose to save an item over a human life? It seems to be a very clear-cut case of the man acting unethically, yet we do the same thing every day. We may not watch the child die, but we know there are children dying of exposure while we buy new clothes. New clothes not because we need them, but because ours no longer in style. The same can be said about the new car, new electronics, new phone that we want and do not need, especially when that money can be used to feed the starving. Does that make us as guilty as the man who saved his car?
We see, experience, and even support activities that are ethically hypocritical. Say on the issue of abortion we oppose abortion because the fetus is a child and it is innocent of any wrongdoing that could possibly justify its death. It is an ethical position, but not the only one. But, on the other hand, we oppose programs like WIC, medical care, headstart, and other programs that cost money because now that innocent child shouldn't be a burden on others.
Some of the examples above were mine based on Singer's examples, but they all seem to share one common feature. Individual ethics in today's world seem heavily dependent on personal cost and discomfort. It is easy to be ethical when it does not cost you anything. But if it cuts into your earning through taxes or takes away luxury you believe you deserve, it is suddenly a new issue and a different set of reasoning. This collection of essays, if they do nothing else, will make the reader think and hopefully think in a different way. More than a collection that was made to simply agree or disagree with, this collection will inspire debate on the topic of ethics, which is what is needed.
Many of the essays examine ethics with the use of thought experiments. The idea that we can easily recognize something as being wrong, yet fail to see the same thing in our everyday lives. Utilitarianism is looked at and examined from different angles as well. Social issues like abortion, wealth distribution, starving children, and animal rights are all examined.
Since it is a collection of essays, the topics cover a wide range of subjects under the general umbrella of ethics. The definition of ethics itself is discussed and compared. The search for a one size fits all code of ethics is discussed as well as the roots of Western (Christian) ethics, which has itself evolved over time. Utilitarianism is discussed as the once possible standard. As much as the idea of providing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people sounds good on the surface, it has a darker side. Typical thought experiments deal with the idea of killing some people so that a majority can survive -- a few suffer (die) so the majority can live would fall into the realms of utilitarianism. Take it a step further into a real world example. China's one-child policy as a method to control population and allow for enough resources for the population was considered barbaric by some because it leads to abortion (another ethical question) and infanticide. To borrow a pop-culture phrase, "Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? "
As much as we like to think there is a clear and well-defined ethical code we often miss what is in front of us. Singer uses an example of a man who buys a rare car as a retirement investment. He can't insure it and plans to sell it to cover his retirement cost. He drives it occasionally and one day he is out and a situation develops where he has a choice of saving his car or saving a child on some railroad tracks, but not both. He chooses to save his car. Of course, this is meant for the reader to show outrage at the actions of the man. How could anyone choose to save an item over a human life? It seems to be a very clear-cut case of the man acting unethically, yet we do the same thing every day. We may not watch the child die, but we know there are children dying of exposure while we buy new clothes. New clothes not because we need them, but because ours no longer in style. The same can be said about the new car, new electronics, new phone that we want and do not need, especially when that money can be used to feed the starving. Does that make us as guilty as the man who saved his car?
We see, experience, and even support activities that are ethically hypocritical. Say on the issue of abortion we oppose abortion because the fetus is a child and it is innocent of any wrongdoing that could possibly justify its death. It is an ethical position, but not the only one. But, on the other hand, we oppose programs like WIC, medical care, headstart, and other programs that cost money because now that innocent child shouldn't be a burden on others.
Some of the examples above were mine based on Singer's examples, but they all seem to share one common feature. Individual ethics in today's world seem heavily dependent on personal cost and discomfort. It is easy to be ethical when it does not cost you anything. But if it cuts into your earning through taxes or takes away luxury you believe you deserve, it is suddenly a new issue and a different set of reasoning. This collection of essays, if they do nothing else, will make the reader think and hopefully think in a different way. More than a collection that was made to simply agree or disagree with, this collection will inspire debate on the topic of ethics, which is what is needed.
March 26, 2015
Sometimes a person takes on controversial topics, truly exploring both sides of the argument, in an attempt to dissect and understand before taking a position. Other times, a person begins with feet and mind firmly planted, then searches for the perfect arguments to advance his/her position. This book feels like the latter. Rather than a discussion of ethics, for me this collection of essays feels more like a soapbox monologue.
These essays have a narrow focus, with much of the discussion centered on the right to die, abortion, and infanticide. The content is repetitive and I found my mind wandering as I read.
While Singer's views can certainly be controversial, the content is thought-provoking regardless of which side you're on. He raises some interesting questions that don't have easy answers. Whether you agree or disagree with his position, the essays will no doubt leave you with much to consider.
*I received a review copy from the publisher via Net Galley, in exchange for my honest review.*
These essays have a narrow focus, with much of the discussion centered on the right to die, abortion, and infanticide. The content is repetitive and I found my mind wandering as I read.
While Singer's views can certainly be controversial, the content is thought-provoking regardless of which side you're on. He raises some interesting questions that don't have easy answers. Whether you agree or disagree with his position, the essays will no doubt leave you with much to consider.
*I received a review copy from the publisher via Net Galley, in exchange for my honest review.*
August 21, 2010
I enjoyed this book, and I believe Singer's writings would be great material for discussion, whether in a classroom or book club. Even though I agree with most of what he says, I still feel vaguely dissatisfied, like his thoughts aren't the last word on any of the topics he covers. I feel that beyond his very simple and straightforward arguments, there are further complications and subtleties that he doesn't touch on. I'm supportive of the mission of utilitarian thinkers to set up rational foundations for our practices and decisions, but I feel like there is much further work that needs to be done in this area to bridge the still wide gap between utilitarian theories and the infinitely more complex world and society it seeks to understand. I guess I'm looking for an approach that combines the pragmatism and clarity of analytic philosophy with the richness and sophistication of continental philosophy, and I haven't found it yet, neither here nor anywhere else.
February 23, 2023
When considering extreme poverty in the Third World, Peter Singer makes no bones about the First World's ethical responsibilities. He states simply that anyone making more than needed for basic necessities has a moral imperative to donate all non-essential wealth (in the West, typically 70% or more of income) to save lives urgently at risk. Should anyone who fails to do this feel bad?Singer answers simply, yes, they should.
Singer himself is not St. Francis of Assisi but a Princeton University professor whose writing and lecturing undoubtedly keep him rather too busy to feel bad. Many have accused him of hypocrisy. Is hypocrisy relevant to philosophy? If a philosopher does us the favor of drawing out abstract schemas of moral imperatives for our edification, isn't that a good regardless of whether the philosopher lives up to the standards himself? Or is the hypocrisy in question fatally corrosive of that philosophy? As emperor of your own moral world, do you give thumbs up or thumbs down?
Singer himself is not St. Francis of Assisi but a Princeton University professor whose writing and lecturing undoubtedly keep him rather too busy to feel bad. Many have accused him of hypocrisy. Is hypocrisy relevant to philosophy? If a philosopher does us the favor of drawing out abstract schemas of moral imperatives for our edification, isn't that a good regardless of whether the philosopher lives up to the standards himself? Or is the hypocrisy in question fatally corrosive of that philosophy? As emperor of your own moral world, do you give thumbs up or thumbs down?
January 10, 2020
I have followed Singer's ethical arguments since the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. This collection of essays was engaging at first, but it became increasingly repetitive as I read deeper into the book. Singer ends up advocating something very like the fundamental aspiration of Buddhism, which is to relieve the suffering of every sentient being, human and nonhuman—thus his advocacy for animal rights, his opposition to eating or experimenting on animals, his exhortation of the rich to share their wealth with the poor. But his view that we can be led to behave ethically purely by reasoning our way to universal altruism seems implausible to me.
November 20, 2017
Great book! Even if you don't agree with Peter Singer's take on various ethical issues, he will still challenge your views with his premises.
Peter Singer will sharpen your argumentative skills by testing the logic behind your principles. And, if yo happen to agree with him, the conclusion you arrive to will summon you to act, for this is not passive logic or classroom exercises. This is life-and-death matter, with no exaggeration.
A 5+ stars book!
Peter Singer will sharpen your argumentative skills by testing the logic behind your principles. And, if yo happen to agree with him, the conclusion you arrive to will summon you to act, for this is not passive logic or classroom exercises. This is life-and-death matter, with no exaggeration.
A 5+ stars book!
July 18, 2025
A collection of writings by the renowned and controversial philospher of Ethics. He uses a Socratic style of argument, which sometimes seems a little laboured, to present his case. While I did not always agree with him, he is certainly persuasive.
January 27, 2023
A very good introduction to some of the main topics of interest to the author
Read
February 5, 2025Read this for my ethics class and now everyone thinks I hate disabled people
February 11, 2020
Singer channels Jeremy Bentham, or perhaps James Mill, providing utilitarian solutions to ethical dilemmas, in this collection of readings from various of his books, published from 1975 to 2000. Sometimes you may think he's imitating Johnathan Swift, such as where Singer contemplates what it would be like to be a horse. (See for instance, under "All Animals Are Equal...", p.41 in this collection.) The book is not devoid of humor, even though many serious topics are discussed, relentlessly. SPOILER ALERT: No, he does not conclude that the Houyhnhnms are a superior species to humans. Darwinism does feature (of a particular 'left' variety that the author explains) but this can never serve to justify "speciesism" (a term Singer did not coin, but which he popularized effectively, such as in his book entitled "Animal Liberation"). There is much to be said by Singer in defense of our nearest relative, the chimpanzee.
Read
May 13, 2007Peter Singer is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Value's.
This is a book I picked up and thougnt might be a good read for me since it combines issues I'm very interesred in. I'm very interested to read about his views on the moral obligations of citizens of affulent nations toward those living in the poorest countries in the world. I know he has very strong views on the Animals Rights Movement, and he has been a voice in trying to push Princeton University to make universally wise choices in what they offer students and staff to eat, based not only on what health value in involed, but what planetary impact is involved. I believe I'm in for a challenging read, and you might like it as well.
This is a book I picked up and thougnt might be a good read for me since it combines issues I'm very interesred in. I'm very interested to read about his views on the moral obligations of citizens of affulent nations toward those living in the poorest countries in the world. I know he has very strong views on the Animals Rights Movement, and he has been a voice in trying to push Princeton University to make universally wise choices in what they offer students and staff to eat, based not only on what health value in involed, but what planetary impact is involved. I believe I'm in for a challenging read, and you might like it as well.
February 27, 2008
Well there is one section talking about how truly there are 15 ways to determine if someone is legally dead but a medical board determined a long time ago that we do not have the sufficient resources or time to perform the 15 tests on someone when they are assumed dead so they voted and chose, the breath, and heart rate. Among the other tests were tests for hormone levels, etc. The doctors on this medical board did say that in rare cases these other tests could possibly save lives, but are not performed. The controversy surrounding this is modern philosophy is, are we allowing people to die?
October 21, 2014
While I am no utilitarian and I have a number of problems with Singer's arguments (particularly the drowning child argument) this is some of the most cogent and straightforwardly enjoyable philosophy I've yet come across. It is concerned with practical issues which affect every one of us - abortion, euthanasia, animal cruelty and vegetarianism and is extraordinarily good at presenting a coherent set of principles by which to live by. In part this was one of the main reasons I chose to become a complete vegetarian.
December 17, 2009
Singer is a straight to the point philosopher. This book is a collection of chapters he's chosen from the large collection of books he's written over the years. Not everyone is going to like the chapters on euthanasia, but I think Singer's point is that what is more ethical is not necessarily what our society considers the norm. A good book for anyone who actually thinks about how their actions affect others and the world.
December 27, 2015
I am not yet sure if I agree with his fundamental proposition that the capacity to feel pain and the capacity to suffer should be the key qualities in determining whether a being should be respected. I need to contemplate on the subject more. Regardless, the author certainly makes a strong case for the proposition in the book. If you want an overview of Peter Singer's work, this book is the fastest way to go.
September 14, 2008
I upgraded my stars on this, because I think about it every day. Some excellent, logical arguments for euthanasia and animal rights, but, probably because it's a collection of Singer's essays, it does get a bit repetitive. I also thought it could have used a different tone every once in a while. Have a laugh, man!
October 7, 2018
This is an intellectually challenging book. Singer has many good points such as with regards to animal rights. It's difficult to think through why and how I disagree with some of Singer's other ethical ideas. More and more though, I don't think many of his ideas are aging very well. I'd like to read a similar style book by a different ethicist if anyone has any good recommendations.
November 8, 2009
Pieces Peter Singer has extracted from his past books and essays and put into a nice collection that would be ideal for anyone wanting to learn more about Ethics or wants an introduction on Singers views. As a reader of some of his books first, the qualities of the book as an introduction were lost on me however I would recommend to others wanting to start learning more about Ethics.
April 28, 2012
I find Peter Singer's work to be very influential, just as millions of others have. He literally created the animal right movement in the United States. I recommend this book to anyone interested in bio-medical ethics. He views really challenge the status quo, especially those about abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
June 26, 2015
Pretty much the opposite of a fun beach read, this is a pretty easily digested bit of philosophy that raises lots of interesting questions. It will make you think about positions you may hold dear or about issues in a new way. At times maddeningly and irritatingly logical, this book is at least thought-provoking.
July 20, 2016
Adorei ler estes ensaios... Li e reli ideias sobre o que nos rodeia e como devemos agir em consciência connosco e com os outros. Permitiu-me clarificar idéias controversas sobre as quais precisava de reflectir: aborto, eutanásia, comer animais, experimentação animal, valor da vida... resumindo como o próprio autor diz, temáticas que nos permitam diminuir o sofrimento no mundo.
April 20, 2007
Not good enough to make me a vegetarian, but good enough to stop me from eating veal ever again. The philosophy is so straightforward that you wonder why anyone else ever needed to be so complicated; in any case, this is praxis over theory, and definitely worthwhile for any first-worlder.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews