Writing about morality is dangerous because you might reveal that you don’t have a very good grasp of the subject. In Ethics for Extraterrestrials, Robert Wright asks what the morality of aliens might be like and answers the question by imagining man meeting another being in space. He thinks we might do rather well, and invokes Peter Singer.
Singer notes the striking moral progress we’ve seen since the days when citizens of Greek city-states treated citizens of other Greek city-states as subhuman. Compare this to the now-common belief that people of all races, creeds and colors are actually people, worthy of decent treatment.
Words fail me. Now, what class of human being does Singer treat as subhuman, as unworthy of the regard and protection we give the human person? What type of human being does he not believe “actually people, worthy of decent treatment”?
Exactly. If Peter Singer’s an example of moral progress, any aliens we meet should shoot first and ask questions later.
May 6th, 2010 | 10:10 am
My reaction exactly. Indeed, I’d rather take my chances with the aliens than with Peter Singer. We don’t know what their moral code might be; we know all to well what his is.
May 6th, 2010 | 11:50 am
Beware the man who believes he has so absorbed God, that he has become Him.
May 6th, 2010 | 3:18 pm
I retain my suspicion (following C. S. Lewis) that if there are other incarnate intelligences in this universe, this planet Earth is most likely quarantined.
May 6th, 2010 | 3:46 pm
When it comes to moral equality, I think the prevailing spirit in the seats of power is more or less indifferent Hobbesianism. Or, something along the lines, though openly less crass, of that espoused by Lee Ermey’s character in Full Metal Jacket: “Here, you are all equally worthless.”
May 6th, 2010 | 5:27 pm
Besides, if we (aliens and humans) are all created by the same God (and there isn’t another choice here folks) then we are all subject to the same Natural Law.
May 6th, 2010 | 6:28 pm
There are no alien beings in the universe. We are alone. The great dome of the night sky is there for our amazement. No one can explain the mystery of existence. But imagination is a wonderful thing.
May 6th, 2010 | 7:47 pm
Singer’s argument about moral progress has become a favorite of atheist apologists, specifically since Singer argues that the moral progress began with the Enlightenment.
May 7th, 2010 | 12:12 am
Peter Singer may not be right about that, but there is something to be said for the idea (not original to Singer!) of a gradually-expanding circle of ethical concern.
And it’s not unreasonable to suggest that animals (or “nonhuman animals”) may be next in line for inclusion in ethics. First, many animals, who never come into contact with a human, seem created by God for their own sake. Second, as C. S. Lewis argued, our wholly God-given conscience clearly tells us that causing unneeded pain to animals is wrong. But that’s exactly what we do every day to genuinely innocent animals who are totally in our power, in countless unseen places (please see my link).
May 7th, 2010 | 4:09 am
Singer doen not believe that fetuses, and newborns, up to a month old should have any moral standing. That is, in his view they can be permissibly killed!
He asserts that only persons cannot be permissibly killed, and to qualify as a person, one must possess consciousness, and rationality.
But he’s not even consistent with his own criteria for personhood, because he claims that, at one month, post birth, babies are person, and therefore, can no longer be permissibly killed. However, babies, although conscious, are not rational! Therefore, for Singer to be internally consistent, he would have to determine, when, in human development, rationality emerges, then assert that all humans younger than this, could be permissibly killed! I never thought that I would be so greatful for someone’s logical incoherence in my life.
Read his book Practical Ethics, for his full discription.
Singer is, frankly, an adherent of dangerous views.
May 7th, 2010 | 2:34 pm
Bret wrote:
“He asserts that only persons cannot be permissibly killed, and to qualify as a person, one must possess consciousness, and rationality.”
Well, that’s not quite his position. It’s more that it is worse to kill a being who is self-conscious. Doesn’t require rationality. Babies are not self-conscious, apparently, until about a month. So there’s no inconsistency in that.
And he argues for euthanasia in situations when a newborn is, for example, in extreme agony and would linger and then die in a few more months, etc. He argues for policies to allow doctors to give parents that choice in those extreme cases, rather than watching their baby suffer and die slowly. That policy has now been in place in Holland for years, and only been used a few times, in the extreme types of cases of which Singer is speaking.
I learned about his above-described views from his book “Writings on an Ethical Life,” which significantly changed my view of him. And then “Animal Liberation” is good, too.
May 8th, 2010 | 12:20 am
“there’s no inconsistency in that”
Dear Mark: I think one of Singer’s main problems is not necessarily inconsistency, but rather arbitrariness. Any time personhood is defined by a list of functional capabilities, the list is going to be more or less arbitrary.
Rather than a “functional” definition, it seems better to go with a “natural” definition–i.e., a person is a person because of possessing a certain type of nature, not because of what that person can or cannot do.
I agree that we have progressed in that we do now see other humans as possessing like natures with us, as Singer points out. But the logical next step is to extend that protection to the developing unborn human, to the comatose human, and so on.
May 8th, 2010 | 2:43 am
Singer explicitly defines personhood, in his book, Practical Ethics, as a reflection of Consciousness, and rationality, and he acknowledges that he has borrowed this definition from the english philosopher John Locke.
by any reasonable standard, no one month old baby possesses both of these traits. the baby may be self conscious, but not rational, unless one identifies self consciousness with rationality, which is not supportable. perhaps Singer has revised his views, since the last edition of Practical Ethics came out (1993). but based on that work, he states that personhood is defined by consciousness and rationality.
May 8th, 2010 | 3:32 am
In an effort to be fair to Peter Singer, I felt that I have an obligation to recheck his views on this issue.
He defines personhood, in the 1993 edition of Practical Ethics, as a reflection of ”self-consciousness, autonomy, and rationality”, and he rightly points out, that fetuses, and newborns, do not possess these traits.
But, after one month, it’s no longer permissible to kill the newborn, because it’s now a person.
Perhaps, although it’s debatable, a one month old baby is self conscious. even if it is, it’s certianly NOT rational, or autonomous. The month old baby is just as dependent on adults for its every need, just like a fetus, or newborn is. How is a one month old baby “rational”, as opposed to a fetus or newborn?
The charge against Singer, that he’s internally inconsistent, that is, that he does not follow his own criteria for personhood, still stands. I should have been more careful, and stated that his personhood criteria are self-consiousness (whereas I stated that it’s merely consciousness), and I should have also mentioned his criterion of “autonomy”.
But if anything, he’s in a deeper hole. Because no one month old baby is autonomous.
In 1998, I believe, the legal philosopher Peter Berkowitz, reviewed, for The New Republic, a book of Singers. The title of the review essay was “Other people’s mothers”. Berkowitz pointed out that, based on Singer’s own utilitarian calculus, that Singer should not be caring for his dementia suffering mother. He should spend the money on more worthy people. But Singer (to his credit!) took very good care of her, because he loved her. But Singer would argue that, morally, the care and money should be spent elsewhere. Apparantly, other people should not treat their mothers the way Singer treats his own mother, based on the utilitarian conception of morality.
So, it’s possible that a pattern of inconsistency exists with Singer, regarding his ethical views.
But who can blame him? After all, his ethics is entirely, and without qualification, unliveable.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact