Peter Singer
Peter Singer is a prominent philosopher and ethical theorist known for his influential advocacy of animal rights, which began with his groundbreaking essay "Animal Liberation" published in 1973. In this work, Singer introduced the concept of "speciesism," which critiques the belief that humans are justified in treating members of other species differently than they would treat members of their own species. He draws parallels between the struggle for animal rights and other liberation movements of the 1970s, such as those for racial and gender equality. Singer's philosophy challenges the traditional moral boundaries by questioning the ethical implications of common practices like using animals for food, clothing, and research. He argues that if humans expand their moral considerations to include animals, many previously accepted practices would be deemed unethical. This perspective invites a deeper examination of our ethical obligations towards non-human beings, encouraging a reevaluation of societal norms and individual behaviors related to animal welfare. Singer's work continues to spark debate and discussion regarding the moral status of animals and the responsibilities of humans as sentient beings.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Peter Singer
- Born: July 6, 1946
- Birthplace: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Author Profile
Since 1973, with the simultaneous publication of his essay “Animal Liberation” in the New York Review of Books and the National Observer, Peter Singer has been the leading advocate of animal rights from a rigorously argued and philosophically defined ethical perspective. In that essay, Singer popularized Richard Ruder’s concept of “speciesism.” Singer defined speciesism as “the belief that we are entitled to treat members of other species in a way in which it would be wrong to treat members of our own.” Singer’s use of the term “animal liberation” tied the liberation of animals to the other liberation movements of the early 1970’s, such as the movements for the liberation of blacks and women. Singer’s work can be understood as a philosophical examination of how far the human moral horizon and human ethical obligations extend. Once humans extend that horizon to include animals, then practices that were once regarded as natural and inevitable, such as using animals for food, clothing, or medical research, can no longer be simply assumed to be ethical. According to Singer, some of these practices will “now be seen as intolerable.”
Bibliography
Bambrough, Renford, ed. Philosophy 53 (October, 1978): 433-563. A special issue of Philosophy devoted entirely to the discussion of the relations between humans and animals. Seven philosophers critically examine Singer’s positions on the moral treatment of animals.
Cottingham, John. “Ethics and Impartiality.” Philosophical Studies 43 (January, 1983): 83-99. The author attacks the impartiality thesis endorsed by Singer and argues that people are morally justified in giving special weight to their own interests and those of family and friends. Cottingham claims that the impartiality thesis is an inadequate foundation for Singer’s ethical globalism.
Fox, Michael. “Animal Liberation: A Critique.” Ethics 88 (January, 1978): 106-118. Fox argues that it makes no sense to ascribe rights to animals because rights exist only within the context of the moral community, and animals lack certain crucial capacities required for membership therein. Fox argues that Singer is wrong in thinking that animals’ capacity to enjoy and suffer is an adequate basis for assigning moral rights to them.
Glock, Hans-Johann. “The Euthanasia Debate in Germany: What’s the Fuss?” Journal of Applied Philosophy 11, no. 2 (1994): 213-224. Glock claims that Singer’s position on euthanasia is immoral but that his expression of those views is protected by freedom of speech. The author argues that Singer’s views do not pose the kind of threat to other legal and moral values that would license a suspension of freedom of expression. Although it is illegitimate to silence Singer, Glock concludes that it is legitimate to protest against Singer because Singer denies that some of the lives of the disabled are worth living, in disregard of their own preferences.
Jamieson, Dale, ed. Singer and His Critics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 1999. An examination of Singer’s philosophical thoughts and responses to those philosophies.
Lockwood, Michael. “Singer on Killing and the Preference for Life.” Inquiry 22 (Summer, 1979): 157-170. Lockwood argues against Singer’s formulation of preference utilitarianism and the greater value Singer places on human, as opposed to nonhuman, life. He concludes that it is counterintuitive to regard animal lives as wholly replaceable.
Narveson, Jan. “Animal Rights.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (March, 1977): 161-178. Narveson denies that animals have strong moral rights such as the right not to be killed for food. He argues from a contractarian perspective and against Singer, that people have no moral obligations to animals but do have duties to weaker humans.
Oderberg, David, and Jacqueline Laing, eds. Human Lives: Critical Essays on Consequentialist Bioethics. New York: Macmillan, 1997. A collection of original papers by philosophers from Britain, the United States, and Australia. The aim of the book is to undermine the persuasiveness of consequentialist views, such as utilitarianism, in the field of bioethics. The book contains excellent criticisms of Singer’s positions on euthanasia, abortion, environmental ethics, animal welfare, and speciesism.
Rowlands, Mark. Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998. Rowlands examines the philosophical aspect of the animal rights movement in Singer’s Animal Liberation.
Sterba, James. “Abortion, Distant Peoples, and Future Generations.” Journal of Philosophy 77 (July, 1980): 424-439. Sterba argues that many of the arguments advanced by those, such as Singer, who favor a liberal view of abortion are inconsistent with a defense of the rights of distant peoples to basic economic assistance. On this account, the author claims that those, such as Singer, who favor a liberal view of abortion and the rights of distant people must moderate their support of at least one of those positions.