What do you think?
Rate this book
The President of Good & Evil: Questioning the Ethics of George W. Bush
The ethicist and author of Animal Liberation offers a provocative look at moral failure of President George W. Bush, revealing a pattern of ethical confusion and self-contradiction when speaking out on such controversial issues as stem-cell research, tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and America as a global power.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
8 people are currently reading
254 people want to read
About the author
Peter Singer
188 books11.1k 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 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 24, 2009
Admittedly, my reading of The President of Good and Evil is a touch belated, but in many ways I am glad it is because I was able to appreciate Peter Singer's work more for what it does than who it is was written about.
Singer's discussion of the failure of Bush's ethics came as no surprise to me. Indeed, there was very little in Singer's argument that I hadn't already considered. The hypocrisy, the lies, the fundamentalism, the arrogance, the vengeance, the stupidity, it is all covered in well argued and scholarly detail.
And Singer's conclusions speak for themselves:
The most compelling aspect of The President of Good and Evil is what it reveals about the importance of thinking and arguing critically. Singer takes all of Bush's statements about ethics and morals and applies them to Bush's actions, moving logically through every misstep to illuminate how those missteps prove Bush's ethical failure, regardless of whether Bush's ethics are individual, utilitarian, Christian or intuitive. It is an impressive critical analysis of Bush's first term as President (the book was written before the 2004 election) and an impressive survey of ethics in action.
Moreover, it provides a convincing argument that all of our leaders should, at the barest minimum, be capable of critical analysis themselves (and, really, so should we all). Bush was incapable of any analysis, critical or otherwise. Perhaps his inability was derived from his faith, perhaps it was merely from his inborn stupidity, but the fact that he was and is incapable of critical analysis was thoroughly proven by Peter Singer.
I would love to see Singer apply this sort of analysis to every American presidency. Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama -- just to name a few -- could all use a deconstruction of their ethics.
But all that aside, I think I will use The President of Good and Evil as a required text the next time I teach "The Principles of Literary Analysis" -- Singer has provided the perfect model of how to think critically.
My only regret with The President of Good and Evil is that it is my first engagement with Peter Singer. I need to get Practical Ethics as soon as possible.
Singer's discussion of the failure of Bush's ethics came as no surprise to me. Indeed, there was very little in Singer's argument that I hadn't already considered. The hypocrisy, the lies, the fundamentalism, the arrogance, the vengeance, the stupidity, it is all covered in well argued and scholarly detail.
And Singer's conclusions speak for themselves:
"When Bush speaks about his ethics, he is either sincere or he is insincere. If he is insincere, he stands condemned for that alone. I have started with the opposite, more generous assumption: that Bush is sincere, and that we should take his ethic seriously, assessing it on its own terms, and asking how well he has done by his own standards. Even if that assumption should be false, the task has been worth undertaking, for we no know that, sincerely held or not, Bush's ethic is woefully inadequate."Singer proves that Bush was a failure, and his presidency was an unethical mess. But that's not what makes The President of Good and Evil such a fascinating book.
The most compelling aspect of The President of Good and Evil is what it reveals about the importance of thinking and arguing critically. Singer takes all of Bush's statements about ethics and morals and applies them to Bush's actions, moving logically through every misstep to illuminate how those missteps prove Bush's ethical failure, regardless of whether Bush's ethics are individual, utilitarian, Christian or intuitive. It is an impressive critical analysis of Bush's first term as President (the book was written before the 2004 election) and an impressive survey of ethics in action.
Moreover, it provides a convincing argument that all of our leaders should, at the barest minimum, be capable of critical analysis themselves (and, really, so should we all). Bush was incapable of any analysis, critical or otherwise. Perhaps his inability was derived from his faith, perhaps it was merely from his inborn stupidity, but the fact that he was and is incapable of critical analysis was thoroughly proven by Peter Singer.
I would love to see Singer apply this sort of analysis to every American presidency. Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama -- just to name a few -- could all use a deconstruction of their ethics.
But all that aside, I think I will use The President of Good and Evil as a required text the next time I teach "The Principles of Literary Analysis" -- Singer has provided the perfect model of how to think critically.
My only regret with The President of Good and Evil is that it is my first engagement with Peter Singer. I need to get Practical Ethics as soon as possible.
May 28, 2011
I realize that George Bush is no longer president, but I will read anything by Peter Singer. A modern day philosopher and ethicist whose writing is clear and understandable to the general public. I suppose you'll like or hate this book according to how you felt about Bush as president. I always believed many of his decisions conflicted with each other and his espoused values, and the Peter Singer shows in this book exactly how true that is. He demonstrates how Bush's words and actions didn't mesh and were often ethically and morally lacking. To me, this is still important to read about today because so many of the people in power in Washington still want to take the country in the same direction as Bush and are still fighting for his disastrous policies.
September 27, 2025
This is a book critiquing George Bush' ethics on a number of issues including stem cell research, climate change, free markets and the Iraq war. It basically argues that in some cases he uses principled reasong (e.g. being against stem cell research), in others he is a utilitarian (e.g. the way he carried out the war on terror and the war in Iraq), while also sometimes espousing a christian ethic. The conclusion is basically that he, as he himself admits, thinks ethically by gut, not by logic. There is also a discussion of what it means to have a moral view of the world, e.g. George Bush believed that he was in a war of good and evil, and once he decided Saddam Hussein was evil that justified all the things that Bush did, including taking the country to war on shaky evidence, depriving US citizens of their legal rights if they were suspected of terrorism, causing civilian deaths in Iraq etc. Singer argues that this incoherent, simplistic and moralistic view of ethics is not great, considering how powerful the president is and the complexity of issues he needs to face. Singer also briefly discusses the Straussian view of George Bush, which is that George Bush is the 'gentleman', meaning that he is an upper-class man of lofty ideals but not much canny or intelligence, and is used by the truly capable people in his administration, essentially as a puppet. This sounds like it might be a little accurate, particularly in relation to the war in Iraq, which was a pre-existing objective for several people in his administration. The book itself is not super fun to read, because it is really analytical and focused purely on the ethical reasoning, so it is logically convincing but not very emotive. A worthwhile book to read, although the Bush's ethical failures do seem rather quaint these days.
March 25, 2014
I imagine many readers, even among those similarly politically inclined to Peter Singer, took the central conceit of this book to be something of a gimmick: a packaging into which could be stuffed the usual laundry list of lefty complaints about the Bush Administration encountered in numerous other volumes, for (re-)sale at a tidy profit. Yet, while the analysis of the Bush Administration presented here is, in its policy particulars, a familiar one, I don’t take a cynical view of the impetus behind the book. To the contrary, I think it was a necessary book, and to a great extent, successful.
Having noted Bush’s habit of referring to issues and decisions in terms thick with moral claims, the task Singer sets for himself is to take that rhetoric seriously and examine it critically. As one of the world’s foremost living moral philosophers, Singer is uniquely situated to highlight the problem and contribute to its examination. One of the most politically powerful men in the world frequently says that morality requires a particular political conclusion, but does it? Are we to simply take his word for it? If moral philosophy has nothing to say about its own application, even in these circumstances in which it is being applied with substantial practical impact, then what use is it?
Bush’s application of moral philosophy in reaching political decisions is found to be problematic in many respects. I find this analysis compelling. But it is not polemical. I don’t believe Singer would want, or expect, for this to be the final word on the ethics of George W. Bush. I would be extremely interested to hear a Bush partisan (indeed, Bush himself) engage in this discussion on these terms.
In fact, it is in attempting to reach some conclusions that the book is at its weakest, in my view. Singer attempts to bring some of the threads back together and ask whether they form something that could be described as a coherent moral philosophy, whether of a utilitarian flavor, or intuitionist, or any other. This is fine, so far as it goes, but approaches an attempt at mind reading, where a simple appeal for Bush or his partisans to respond might have been more compelling. An especially discordant note is sounded, however, when Singer indulges in a 5-page digression that even he himself introduces as appealing to those who “enjoy speculating about secret cliques that rule the world.” Singer speculates that the Bush Administration consists of a dark cabal of the followers of political philosopher Leo Strauss, and this team of Straussian “gentlemen” self-consciously promulgate a false rhetoric of morality that placates the masses. It feels as though we’re to accept this episode of conspiracy-theorizing as legitimate amid a philosophical exploration because it has a political philosopher at its center (and of course because Singer assures us that he’s “not particularly keen on conspiracy theories...”) It contributes nothing and leaves a sour taste.
But these few discordant pages aside, this is a worthwhile, and indeed, a necessary book. Singer did what others similarly situated seemed to think was somehow futile, or unnecessary, or, I fear, beneath them. People often say they want a richer, more thoughtful political discourse. Efforts like this are a necessary part of building one.
Having noted Bush’s habit of referring to issues and decisions in terms thick with moral claims, the task Singer sets for himself is to take that rhetoric seriously and examine it critically. As one of the world’s foremost living moral philosophers, Singer is uniquely situated to highlight the problem and contribute to its examination. One of the most politically powerful men in the world frequently says that morality requires a particular political conclusion, but does it? Are we to simply take his word for it? If moral philosophy has nothing to say about its own application, even in these circumstances in which it is being applied with substantial practical impact, then what use is it?
Bush’s application of moral philosophy in reaching political decisions is found to be problematic in many respects. I find this analysis compelling. But it is not polemical. I don’t believe Singer would want, or expect, for this to be the final word on the ethics of George W. Bush. I would be extremely interested to hear a Bush partisan (indeed, Bush himself) engage in this discussion on these terms.
In fact, it is in attempting to reach some conclusions that the book is at its weakest, in my view. Singer attempts to bring some of the threads back together and ask whether they form something that could be described as a coherent moral philosophy, whether of a utilitarian flavor, or intuitionist, or any other. This is fine, so far as it goes, but approaches an attempt at mind reading, where a simple appeal for Bush or his partisans to respond might have been more compelling. An especially discordant note is sounded, however, when Singer indulges in a 5-page digression that even he himself introduces as appealing to those who “enjoy speculating about secret cliques that rule the world.” Singer speculates that the Bush Administration consists of a dark cabal of the followers of political philosopher Leo Strauss, and this team of Straussian “gentlemen” self-consciously promulgate a false rhetoric of morality that placates the masses. It feels as though we’re to accept this episode of conspiracy-theorizing as legitimate amid a philosophical exploration because it has a political philosopher at its center (and of course because Singer assures us that he’s “not particularly keen on conspiracy theories...”) It contributes nothing and leaves a sour taste.
But these few discordant pages aside, this is a worthwhile, and indeed, a necessary book. Singer did what others similarly situated seemed to think was somehow futile, or unnecessary, or, I fear, beneath them. People often say they want a richer, more thoughtful political discourse. Efforts like this are a necessary part of building one.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 3, 2025
Never cross a philosopher unless you’re prepared to have your ethics dissected. At the dawn of the millennium, the Bush administration didn’t just wage a mendacious campaign to justify war in Iraq, it also had, in Singer’s estimation, the audacity to stifle stem cell research, all under the guise of religious morality. And they might have gotten away with it too, if not for that meddling Peter Singer, who helmed the Bioethics division at Princeton.
What follows is a 300-page systematic takedown of Dubya; a complete psychological dismantling of his ethical framework, doubling as a filter to expose just how morally bankrupt he really was. From local governance to geo politics to the people he surrounded himself with (via a very interesting and borderline conspiracy theorist detour to explore the influence of political philosopher Leo Strauss on the Bush cabinet), Singer leaves no stone unturned in his quest to really penetrate what Bush stands for. And unsurprisingly, it’s clear he doesn’t stand for much - or if he does, he was a useful idiot being puppeteered by a far more devious think tank.
To be fair, this deep dive you could do with any politician which most likely would result in a bad outcome, but hey… it’s good to know people like Singer exist to keep them in check every now and then.
And in case you were wondering, the very final sentence (SPOILER ALERT) is:
…Bush’s ethics is woefully inadequate.
What follows is a 300-page systematic takedown of Dubya; a complete psychological dismantling of his ethical framework, doubling as a filter to expose just how morally bankrupt he really was. From local governance to geo politics to the people he surrounded himself with (via a very interesting and borderline conspiracy theorist detour to explore the influence of political philosopher Leo Strauss on the Bush cabinet), Singer leaves no stone unturned in his quest to really penetrate what Bush stands for. And unsurprisingly, it’s clear he doesn’t stand for much - or if he does, he was a useful idiot being puppeteered by a far more devious think tank.
To be fair, this deep dive you could do with any politician which most likely would result in a bad outcome, but hey… it’s good to know people like Singer exist to keep them in check every now and then.
And in case you were wondering, the very final sentence (SPOILER ALERT) is:
…Bush’s ethics is woefully inadequate.
Read
December 3, 2009If there were a thesis statement for this book, it would be "The moral values of President Bush are inconsistent." Not much of a shocker there. It was still a worthwhile skim (not necessarily full "read") though - points I found most wortwhile were summaries from Bob Woodward's recent books (Bush at War, etc) and analysis of anti-stem cell research arguments.
Also, he uses the Catholic Church's doctrine of "justifiable war" as a lens to look at the decision to invade Iraq, something that would seem a bit odd to a first-time reader only familiar with his radical stances on other hot-button issues (ie, late-term / pre-birth abortion).
Also, he uses the Catholic Church's doctrine of "justifiable war" as a lens to look at the decision to invade Iraq, something that would seem a bit odd to a first-time reader only familiar with his radical stances on other hot-button issues (ie, late-term / pre-birth abortion).
February 7, 2015
I have read many books on the disaster, in both U.S. & global terms, that was the Bush administration. This one examines the ethics of the man, the devout Christian, who God apparently placed in the White House. Needless to say they are inconsistent, illogical &, at times, inexplicable. In Australia we have God's current rep, Tony Abbott, displaying himself as an ethical vacuum. Please God, don't place any more of your devotees in positions of power. They don't seem to pay the slightest attention to what Christ might have done if presented with similar decisions.
October 29, 2008
What if we take Bush at his word. Does he mean what he says? Is there consistency to his ethical view of the world? Nah. But this book goes through the exercise of looking at many of the statements he has made and the broad values he supposedly espouses to see if there is a consistent worldview, an ethic that might, under some view be defensible. You might want to read this for completeness, but it’s like a novel in which we know how it will end far too long before the climax.
February 10, 2008
Ethics are consistent set of principles, applied consistently, which establish the moral status of actions. This book, by one of the most influential philosophers alive today shows that, for a man who couches the world in black and white moral language, President George W. Bush is surprisingly inconsistent in his ethics. Outstanding read.
April 19, 2008
If I were the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party, I would have had a copy of this book and Wendell Berry’s “Citizen’s Dissent:…” in the hands of every religious leader in America. This book takes on an exhaustive moral dissection of Bush’s policies and lays bare the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and well... evilness. Well worth a second glance at some point when it isn’t too painful.
July 2, 2008
Ivy League bio-ethicist examines the disconnects between the words and actions of the Bush administration. A thorough and clearly stated evaluation of multiple situations. Bottom-line, the president has the emotional maturity of a 12 year old boy.
October 15, 2008
Now, I'm giving this a 5, but in fairness, it's been a good few months since I read it. What I love about this book is it is not content to poke fun at Bush, which is easy, but tries to understand his ethical system. Singer is a master - he makes elegant, understandable arguments.
August 17, 2011
Peter Singer, one of the most philosophically consistent thinkers out there (for better and for worse, many would say), discussing the inconsistencies of Dubya's ethics. This book is pretty much what you think it's going to be.
July 29, 2010
This book is interesting and pretty much what you'd expect from Peter Singer. I could see it being boring to people with little interest in ethics but it does raise some interesting points.
February 19, 2011
God I hate George bush
May 4, 2013
I kinda wish that there was also a followup to the second Bush term.
April 10, 2015
very good. recommended
December 2, 2014
Depressing realities. It can get that bad.
March 26, 2017
Surprisingly easy to read.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews