Wie sollen wir leben? Ethik in einer egoistischen Zeit

by Peter Singer, Hermann Vetter (Übersetzer)

Singer suggests that people who take an ethical approach to life often avoid the trap of meaninglessness, finding a deeper satisfaction in what they are doing than those people whose goals are narrower and more self-centered. He spells out what he means by an ethical approach to life and shows that it can bring about significant and far-reaching changes to one's life. How Are We to Live? explores the way in which standard contemporary assumptions about human nature and self-interest have led to a world that is fraught with social and environmental problems. Singer asks whether selfishness is in our genes and concludes that we do not have to accept the bleak view of human nature sometimes believed to be inevitable, given our evolutionary origins.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Cultural, Science, Australia, Politics, Self Help

300 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

Peter 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.

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 2 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، <پیتر سینگر> استرالیایست و در دانشگاه های ملبورن و آکسفورد درس خوانده و خوانده هایش را آموزش داده است... بیشتر آثار و نوشته های وی در موردِ اخلاقِ عمومی میباشد و البته در مورد محیط زیست و طبیعت و حیوانات نیز مقاله ها و کتابهایی نوشته است... شاید به دلیلِ برخی از نظراتی که به دیدهٔ غیرِ منطقیِ دینداران خوش نمی آید، این کتاب یا دیگر آثارش به فارسی ترجمه نشده است... لذا تصمیم گرفتم تا آنچه از این کتاب دریافتم را به صورتِ چکیده، در زیر برایتان بنویسم
‎چیزی که سبب میشود تا نوشته هایِ سینگر برای من از ارزش خیلی بالایی برخوردار نباشد، این است که بیش از حد از انسانها انتظار کمک به مستمندان را دارد و بنظرم اینکار باعث میشود تا دولتها و حکومت ها وظایف خودشان را به کلی فراموش کرده و یا مراکز جمع آوری این کمک های مردمی، همچون بسیاری از مراکزی که در ایران هستند، کلاه برداری کرده و کمک های مردمی را برای خودشان بردارند... که قصد ندارم به این موضوع در این ریویو بپردازم و فقط به نوشته های این کتاب و نظرات سینگر میپردازم، با آنکه میدانم انتظاراتی که سینگر دارد، برای اجرای آنها بر رویِ این کرهٔ خاکی حتی یکدرصد هم شانسی وجود ندارد
****************
‎عزیزانم، هدفِ اصلی سینگر، جا انداختنِ کمک به دیگران و از خودگذشتگی میباشد... در این کتاب نیز بطورِ کلی معتقد است که انسانها چنانچه در راهِ هدف هایی که آنها را برونی و دیدنی مینامیم، کوشش کنند، میتوانند زندگیِ معناداری داشته باشند
‎سینگر رنج و درد را بطور سرشتین بد دانسته و کاهشِ رنج در جهانِ هستی را ارزشمندترینِ ارزشها میداند
‎سینگر معتقد است، کسی که تنها هدفش شادی و خوش بودنِ خودش میباشد و شاید بطور تصادفی از رنجِ جهانِ هستی کم کند و یا کاهش دهد، این شخص زندگیِ با معنایِ درونی ندارد
‎انسانی میتواند از رنجِ هستی کم کند که درجه هایی از کامیابی و خوشبختی را بدست آورده باشد ... سینگر میگوید: اگر ما اولین درجه هایِ کامیابی را بدست آوریم و سپس برایِ کاهشِ رنجِ دیگران از خودگذشتگی نشان دهیم، آنگاه زندگیِ ارزشمندی برایِ زیستنِ خود و دیگران در این جهانِ هستی ساخته ایم... سینگر این نوع زندگی را "زندگیِ اخلاقی" دانسته و میگوید: زیستن در "زندگیِ اخلاقی" ما را توانا میسازد تا خودمان را با سنگینترین و مهمترین دلیلِ همهٔ دلیلها بشناسیم و این بهترین راهی است که برایِ ما باز شده است تا زندگیِ معناداری، داشته باشیم
‎عزیزانم، منظورِ سینگر از اولین درجه های خوشبختی و کامیابی میتواند تعریف های گوناگونی داشته باشد، مثلاً میخواهد بگوید که اگر شما یک خانه یا همان یک واحدِ آپارتمانی خریدید و یک ماشین دارید و درآمدتان کافی و خوب است، دیگر لازم نیست تا واحد آپارتمان را تبدیل به خانهٔ بزرگتر کنید و ماشین بهتر و گرانتر بخرید، بلکه شما میتوانید دیگران را کمک کنید و آنها نیز به اولین درجاتِ خوشبختی و کامیابی برسند... این نظر موافق ها و مخالفانِ خودش را دارد و من انتخاب را بر عهدهٔ شما میگذارم
‎سینگر معتقد است که انسانها با از خودگذشتگی و کاهشِ رنجِ دیگران، میتوانند به زندگیِ این هستی معنا بخشیده و این هیچ ارتباطی به دینداری و خداپرستی نداشته و ندارد.. نبودِ خدا و اعتقاداتِ دینی، نمیتواند زندگیِ انسانها را از درون، بدونِ معنا و بدونِ ارزش سازد
‎سینگر میگوید که برایِ تبدیلِ جهانِ هستی به جهانی بهتر که خوبی هایِ بیرونی و ذاتی در آن افزایش یافته و بدی های ذاتی در آن کاهش یافته باشد، نیاز نیست تا زندگیِ انسانها دارایِ معنایِ فراطبیعی بوده و موجودی نامرئی و یا خدای به اصطلاح قادرِ مطلق وجود داشته باشد که بر زندگیِ آنها نظارت داشته باشد..... انسانها بدونِ آنکه تصور کنند که قادرِ متعالی وجود دارد که نگرانِ زندگیِ آنهاست، میتوانند خودشان به زندگیِ خود، معنا و مفهوم بخشیده و با از خودگذشتگی، زندگی انسانهای دیگر را نیز بهتر کنند
------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم این ریویو برای شما خردگرایانِ ایرانی، در جهتِ آشنایی با اندیشه های این نویسنده و این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

[PattyMacDotComma · Rating 5 out of 5]

5★+
"I shall suggest that living an ethical life enables us to identify ourselves with the grandest cause of all, and that to do so is the best way open to us of making our lives meaningful.

I wrote this review in 2015 and was just reminded of the book, so I came back to read it. I'd like to promote Peter Singer's ideas again, because I admire how he thinks. It was a library book, and I didn't copy any other quotes at the time, but here's what I thought back then.
======

As I write, this book is 22 years old, but as relevant now as ever for anyone feeling lost and wondering what we can do about Life and the state of the world.

1993 was before the online world of social media and the likes of global petitions that 'clickivists' can use to instantly express their displeasure with unethical treatment of people and animals and share it with others.

It is such a delight to read a well-written philosophical discussion of what ethics means and what it means in people's lives. Activism can play a part, but it's more about a general attitude to our behaviour.

When teaching in the US, Singer was astounded by the number of unhappy Americans going to therapists who told them to look inward to seek help.

Singer would rather they be encouraged to look out to see where they could be of help to others (in poverty or distress), which might be a more appropriate treatment for lack of fulfilment.

Singer has given a brief overview of the positions of other philosophers - Plato, Aristotle, Smith, Kant, - as well as of the major religions. Great 'nutshell' resource. They don't agree on our motives for behaving ethically and sometimes not on what constitutes ethical behaviour.

The political references are interesting but less current.

I apologise if he's changed his mind over the previous two decades, but from what I've seen in his interviews, he's as passionate as ever.

Each time I see him on TV or read an article about him, I promise to read his books. This won't be the last one.

[Lobstergirl · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's an interesting discussion in Chapter 9 comparing the ethical systems of Jesus and Kant and others; in Chapter 10, a critique of psychotherapy as anti-ethical (the flaws of the self are legitimate and worthy of investigation, but looking inward in order to correct them is problematic). Aside from those two chapters, I found this lightweight.

[Daniel Hageman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A semi-surprising fresh perspective given the its publication in the early 90s. The chapter on Japanese culture, and the way Tit-for-tat social dynamic strategies can be applied towards a better society, were particularly fascinating.

This gem in the final chapter was particularly surprising, given his seemingly steadfast positions towards classical utilitarianism over the years:

p. 276 "If we take the point of view of the universe we can recognize the urgency of doing something about the pain and suffering of others, before we even consider promoting (for their won sake rather than as a means to reducing pain and suffering) other possible values like beauty, knowledge, autonomy or happiness." <3

He also seems to genuinely recognize Sidgwick's 'dualism of practical reason' as a legitimate barrier to a normative ethical framework:

p. 277 "It would be nice to be able to reach a stronger conclusion than this about the basis of ethics. As things stand, Sidgwick's 'old immoral paradox', the clash between self-interest and generalized benevolence, has been softened, but it has not been dissolved."

Granted, this is potentially prior to Singer's familiarization with Parfit's work in R&P, which would be interesting to confirm.

Overall very glad I read a book that was a couple decades old, and will leave with this final nugget from the final chapter.

"Anyone can become part of the critical mass that offers us a chance of improving the world before it is too late. You can rethink your goals, and question what you are doing with your life. If your present way of living does not stand up against an impartial standard of value, then you can change it...More often, the commitment to a more ethical way of living will be the first step to a gradual but far-reaching evolution in your lifestyle and in your thinking about your place in the world. You will take up new causes, and find your goals shifting. If you get involved in your work, money and status will become less important. From your new perspective, the world will look different. 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 the amount of pain and suffering in the universe by trying to make the world a better place."

[Laurens · Rating 3 out of 5]

Even though this book was written in the 90's, it still applies today, and even stronger: It can be seen as a critique on recent problems within our global economical crisis. Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher (on practical ethics and bio-ethics in general) which is famous for his book on animal rights - "Animal Liberation". Animal rights clearly are one of the most important subjects for him and is a recurring theme in this book as well, besides the fact that he consciously tried to avoid the subject because it has been covered in multiple other books by Singer himself.

I really liked and disliked this book at the same time, and for reasons I can not (yet) define. Right now (after finishing it today) I'm still wondering if I would recommend this book to others. I would say yes, since it can be an enlightening read for some and is quite enjoying with all the practical examples of ethical behaviour and ethical thought. But while being enlightening for people not having thought about ethics or morality before (excl. simplistic religious -commandments-), I personally did not become any wiser on the subject. Peter Singer makes a few interesting notions and points out some paradoxes about several ethical ideas and subjects, but most of it is purely practical and focussed on Utilitarian purposes, that being to avoid pain and suffering for all (you, your family and friends, but animals and strangers as well) is the most important ethical aspiration in our world. I do not agree completely on this notion, but I think it is an honourable aim in life, provided that in practical terms you really do have a positive effect on the world and it's citizens considering their happiness, benefits and non-suffering.

I'm thinking about writing down some keypoints that Peter Singer tries to make in different chapters to provide some information for other Goodreads-users, as well as giving myself a clear picture of the essential contents of the book, hoping that will make up my mind more clearly.

I would not buy this book, but if you can find it in your local library, do not be afraid to pick it up. There is wisdom in every book, and this book is definitely written to enlighten people and to construct a better world in one way or another.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s quite possible Peter Singer has had a greater impact on my life than anyone else. When I was a senior in high school, I read “Animal Liberation,” his 1975 book in which he argued for a new ethics in our treatment of animals. That was 1991. I’ve been vegan ever since. In contrast, I grew up a child of divorced parents, both from conservative Catholic families. By the time I was a young adult, I found myself at odds with their view of the world. My mother voted for H. Ross Perot — twice. Her third husband, of nearly thirty years and a Fox News junkie, certainly voted for Donald J. Trump. My mother, if she was still alive, would have done the same, though she may have, but not necessarily, turned up her nose at some of Trump’s less savory qualities (I can imagine her excusing his famous off-camera denigration with a “Boys will be boys …”). My father, shocking though it still is to me, received for Christmas 2017 a framed picture of Donald and Melania Trump from Trump’s presidential inauguration. When my father tore open the wrapping paper to find what was inside, he exclaimed, “That’s my man!” Where do you find a middle ground with that when you despise everything about Trump and what he represents? Later that trip, while out at a bar with two of my sisters, one of whom is a lesbian, in a final-nail-in-the-coffin move, I railed against Trump and the unfathomable discordance between her lifestyle and her politics. The result? At my third sister’s 2019 wedding, my brother reached out to shake my wife’s hand as if they hadn’t hugged a hundred times before, none of my immediate family said more than the barest of salutations (and most not even that), and at the reception, we were seated at the second-cousins table (“Table 19” anyone?). Though I get the occasional text from my father and the obligatory holiday card, I am essentially persona non grata in my family.

All of which, I think, brings me back to the book at hand, Peter Singer’s “How Are We to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest.” Originally published in 1993 with a new edition and preface in 1997, it’s clearly written in the wake of the 1980s — the “Greed Decade” — when consumerism, conspicuous consumption, and self-interest were, up to then anyway, at an all-time high. (The irony that Trump was such a looming, iconic figure in those days vis-à-vis my family dynamics is not lost on me.) I was quite excited to finally get around to this book. One, to see if lightning would strike twice, and two, because if we thought the 80s was the nadir for societal connectedness and reciprocity, just think what we’ve got now.

This isn’t a book about politics or religion, it’s a book about ethics. In our current world, however, our ethics are often conflated with either or both of those things. (You can ask yourself, “Did my ethics lead me to be/do ___________, or am I/do I ___________ because of my ethics?”) In a world where religion is no longer widely seen as a guide to life, this is a book about finding meaning and purpose, about finding something worth pursuing — beyond the self, beyond money, beyond success. No, lightning did not strike twice. How could it have? After all, I’ve been vegan for nearly two-thirds of my life, choosing a lifestyle that puts my compassion for nonhuman animals at the center of my very existence. And the moral principles that guide me don’t stop there, they lead me wherever I go, constantly placing me at odds — out of step, as Ian MacKaye once sang — with the world. And the book itself? With its deft combination of philosophical argument and real-world examples, I can imagine a young adult, lost in a world of environmental collapse, polarizing politics, “binge-worthy” television, the paradox of social media, not to mention the Sturm und Drang of a global pandemic, picking up this book and finding hope. In a world that feels increasingly hopeless, with lives that seem increasingly meaningless, what more can you ask for? This is an important and highly readable book. Given the anxiety that is destroying young people today, if I could, I would get “How Are We to Live” into the hands of everyone old enough to read it.

[Rhys Grimwade · Rating 4 out of 5]

Smart guy, great breadth of thought, harrowing that 30 years have not arrested the downward societal spiral. However, most pertinent to me is that a man who supports Hawthorn thinks he can speak morality despite standing idly by whilst the hawks rushed 11 behinds to win the 2008 grand final.

[Amelie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is grand example of how things in like simply go full circle.
Most of the examples in this book , are now currently happening, good way to reflect.
I might read more nonfiction:)

[Joshua Stein · Rating 2 out of 5]

Singer is an interesting guy, but this isn't some of his interesting work. It's written at, basically, a high school level and relies heavily on having a constituency that agrees with him.

If you don't agree with Singer going into the text, it's hard to come away agreeing with him. I've been empathetic to Singer's position reading some of his more technical work on ethics, but this particular book is pretty weak when it comes to convincing me of anything.

Singer's positions are interesting, and I recommend that people look into them. I also recommend that they find a different text that will allow them to do that more fully than this one did. There are plenty of anecdotes and its great for someone who's pretty new to ethics, but its a really weak representation of Singer.

[A · Rating 2 out of 5]

1- While the title of the book caught my eye, the editing was subpar. The book was littered with grammatical and punctuation errors, which made it difficult to comprehend at times. Despite an interesting start, it eventually became lackluster.

2- The author mentions Israel several times throughout the book, yet does not address the ethical implications of the plight of Palestinians, Israeli terrorism, settler-colonialism, and apartheid. If you were able to dedicate paragraphs to discuss the ethics of animal rights, it would have been reasonable to also allocate a sentence or two towards addressing the victims of Zionist terror, no?

3- The author exhibits a clear positive bias towards the West throughout the book, aside from the chapter on Japan. It appeared that his views were geared towards advancing ethics solely for the betterment of the West, rather than for the betterment of the world as a whole. Though advocating for ethics from a universal perspective, the author fails to mention Western aggression towards the rest of the world and the ethical implications behind the apathy of Westerners towards their government's actions. While the author critiques China, Russia, and Iran, there is a conspicuous absence of any critique of American, Israeli, or Western terrorism. The author acknowledges the importance of providing assistance to "developing countries", but fails to discuss the factors that led to their current state. As a result, his advocacy for ethics from a universal perspective did not seem genuine and spoke a lot like "let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya"

4- This book failed to provide me with valuable insights on how to live an ethical life. The values it espoused were already instilled in me by my parents during my upbringing. Perhaps the book might resonate more with Westerners, particularly Americans, who have grown up in a culture of individualism and extreme self-interest. Having said that, it enabled me to perceive Western societies from a distinct perspective, which led me to sympathize with the difficulties of their sequestered and isolated lifestyle.

Overall, I do not regret reading this book. It got me out of a reading slump, but the last chapter was a slog. That being said, I don't recommend it.

[Leon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Since reading Animal Liberation over 5 years ago, I regret that I never sought out Singer's other works which arguably have just as much insight into how we ought to treat other beings. How are we to Live focuses on different attitudes towards life and concludes that one lived ethically, after accepting the subjectivity of our role in the universe, is the least arbitrary. Even though the question of what constitutes a meaningful pursuit might seem to be undermined by objections from only being relevant whilst intelligent beings exist to ask them or by them being explained through the unconscious process of evolution or that in a few generations the effects of your good deeds might have extinguished. The alleviation of pain and suffering in the time that these beings were alive to experience it will always have intrinsic value. I also enjoyed the chapters on the Prisoner's dilemma, Japanese life and the heros of the holocaust.

[Leonardo]

"When food comes from a shop, bought with a government welfare cheque provided by a well-meaning social worker eager to see that all Australians get what they are legally entitled to receive, the [Aboriginals’] skills and knowledge acquired over a lifetime are immediately devalued. The result is deeply demoralizing. Almost everything . . . has lost its point."

Citado en Capabilities and Happiness Pág.176

[Rita Martins · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Há ainda alguma coisa pela qual viver?" é a permissa deste livro que nos leva a refletir sobre os valores mais relevantes da vida, como havemos de viver para além do dinheiro, do amor, da nossa família...
Singer apresenta os traços gerais de uma sociedade egoísta, construída pela visão falsamente liberal do mundo e declara-a uma "experiência social falhada", à semelhança do comunismo.
É um livro de filosofia bastante acessível ao público em geral e que vale a pena ler e discutir.

[John Desmond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book that was not only delightful to read, but changed my world view. I now hope after reading this book to shift from a self-interest focussed life, to an ethical, others focussed life. I've already begun increasing my donations to environmental organizations (Clean Air Task Force, Carbon180, Sunrise Education Movement Fund) and signing up for an interview with a volunteer organization here in New York City.

[Greg Robinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

fresh and refreshing; one of the great thinkers of our time; strong advocacy of ethics when the consumerist ways of the western world seem to be pervasive; solutions for those who want to change things for the better

[Haley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is old school Peter Singer so some of his ideas have evolved since he wrote it, but I always enjoy his discussions about how and why we should seek to live ethical lives.

[Daniel Gasperut · Rating 4 out of 5]

basically, Try to be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.

[Will Ford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter Singer is a bit too left-wing for me. Nothing too groundbreaking in this book.

[Galena · Rating 5 out of 5]

An enlightening book by an enlightened philosopher.

[Javier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Una llamada a una ética global, una clara respuesta a la "elección radical", donde antepondremos una vida ética al vacío del interés propio.

[RF Francis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chagrin at having taken so long to find this book is offset by the relief that I found it at all. Kind of like a handbook for being a person.

[Harun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eye opening.

[Charlie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another great one from Pete.

This book can fairly tidily be divided into two halves: the first a fairly populist warning about the law of psychological diminishing returns in persuing wealth; the second the psychological benefits of leading an ethical life.

The first half we have heard before but perhaps not so well researched and certainly not so rigorously and carefully argued. We have also heard a lot of genetic and evolutionary reasons for ethical behaviour, but rather than focusing on how we are fundamentally selfish as some sensationalist writers might like to polemicise, Singer focuses on how it is in our nature to be ethical.


He then gives reasons relating to sympathy and reciprocity as to why it pays to act in the interests of others. He also goes further to give some game theoretical reasons - based on the work of Robert Axelrod - to be ethical in a broad sense (something that is discussed by many other philosophers most notably David Gauthier in his book Morals by Agreement)


But Singer admits that although that these reasons explain a lot of our ethical behaviour, they give us no reason to be ethical on a theoretical level, and this is where the most interesting idea in the book comes out. Singer asserts that the best reason for us to be ethical on a theoretical level is that it will lead to the most meaningful life. Singer admits that he has no logical argument to support this, which is one of the things that makes this book so interesting. Usually we are used to Singer's characteristically foundational arguments, only appealing to moral intuitions as an ad hominem argument (on this see his 'Sidgewick and Reflective Equilibrium'). But this is not an argument about what is moral, this is an argument about how morality is useful to us.


Because of this, this book is much more rhetorical than his other books, Singer takes much longer guiding you through his argument, giving you evidence that suggests the conclusion he wants you to make, which at times although not so incisive makes for much more enjoyable reading (the chapter on Japanese business culture comes from a particularly obtuse angle).


Ultimately I would recommend this book as a good way of getting you to reflect on your values, to help think about the many places our ethical behaviour in fact comes from, and to start you thinking about the idea of an ethical life as the most meaningful.

[Bob Breckwoldt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter Singer is a philosopher who has aimed to change the world. In doing so he is both greatly admired and vilified. This books and his other works have persuaded many to be vegans or vegetarians and give a large part of their income to the poorest. He aims at persuading people to reduce suffering by promoting an ethical life.
It is an easily readable philosophical and practical defence of a utilitarian ethic of giving maximum satisfaction to fulfilling the desires of all feeling creatures. Singer sates that “to live an ethical life is not self-sacrifice, but self-fulfilment.”
For some it is call to arms. For others (like me) it leaves them cold because they believe personal ties and personal attachments are central to the human condition. Impartiality, as construed here, faces an impossible uphill struggle, that would eat away at essential virtues. However it is worth reading for the challenge it presents to other ways of living and the practical ideas it gives for those who agree with him.

[Tracey Madeley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing book, full of thought provoking ideas, if not a one size fits all solution. It speaks about the power of encouragement with the example of the dolphin that helps injured animals to the surface. That freedom is a choice we make, even if that choice is limited by our environment. The Japanese experience was fascinating in that it is different to the ideology of the West. Where loyalty to the company is everything and is promoted from the kinder-garden. He describes envy as the pre-occupation with unfulfilled wants, that a climate of envy and self interest is based on ranking. He speaks of Aristotle saying that we become virtuous by practicing virtue. He ends by saying we find fulfillment by focusing on a cause and making informed choices. For by being more environmentally aware, choosing products which are not animal tested, where food is responsibly grown and animals are treated well, we make an ethical impact.

[Heather Pagano · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book with the expectation that it would challenge some of my views, so my disappointment is not that Singer didn't validate all my personal opinons. I went in ready to debate and argue and question my own fundamental beliefs, and I felt like Singer was unwilling to do the same. Singer assumed a lot of value judgements without any attempt to rigorously show why he considered them valid. He then used these "obviously we all feel the same way" values as premises throughout the book. Well, I didn't always feel the same way, and would have enjoyed a deeper dive into the reasoning behind his premises. Assuming his unexplained premises, the book reads well: clearly written, easy to understand, illustrated with engaging stories from his life and the lives of his family and friends.

[Naomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went through a Peter Singer stage when I first started uni. I love the way his mind works, so straight forward and very logical. His books have had a great effect on the way I interact with my environment. He sets an ideal that I find difficult to live up to, to be completely honest. I find utilitiarianism just that little bit too cold and logical - I find it hard to dispute his premises but don't come close to living the ethical life that he recommends.

[Katie Reynolds · Rating 5 out of 5]

Singer is one of my favorites because he's able to explain why living ethically matters and how to do it, in a way that makes it sound like common sense. I've read Animal Liberation (it's one of the reasons I'm now a vegetarian) and some evolutionary psychology, and this book touches on a lot of those ideas in that accessible, common-sense way. I'd recommend it as a good introduction to anyone interested in moral philosophy or ethics.

[Logan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great read. It's very accessible, popular philosophy on ethics written by one of the greatest thinkers of our time. I read it during my first philosophy class way back at SLCC. We were to write a brief essay on a philosopher of our choice, and though we didn't cover him in the class I wrote on Peter Singer and mostly this book. Well worth picking up.

[Daniela Carvalho Dias de Souza · Rating 4 out of 5]

In "How are we to live?: Ethics in an age of self-interest", Singer's approach takes us to ask ourselves the way we have spent our lives and most of all, how our lives impact into every single living thing around us. It is a very good book.