Advertisement

The greatest strength of the book is to show how a fairly explicit ethical theory can give reasonable answers to a wide range of practical problems . Singer shows how plausible a number of questions can be obtained from a single principle: the principle of equal treatment of interests . It is not the purpose of this book to explore . Extensively on the foundations of ethics It is , Singer does not attempt to argue for his version of utilitarianism of ” fundamental principles . ” It does not claim that his theory is the only plausible ethical theory . Rather, Singer accepts certain assumptions , provides reason to believe that they are realistic , and draws conclusions from them . While not the only type of business ethics , and perhaps not fundamental , it is certainly interesting and useful. Singer claims that someone who takes the ethical point of view , rather than , say, will realize that its interests should not give special importance in terms of caution , because they are. Reflection on the universal aspect of ethics can lead to the principle of equal treatment is important to establish . The adoption of such rules in principle on grounds of racial and sexual discrimination . Singer claims that it also argues against certain forms of behavior towards animals. Singer said that some non – human animals are people who are rational and self-conscious beings , aware of themselves as entities with a past and a future . Insofar as there are reasons not to inflict pain and murder people, these reasons do not apply to non-human persons and human persons . Moreover , even non- human animals are not people have interests , and we have the principle of equal treatment of interest applicable to them . To the extent that these creatures are able to experience pleasure and pain , we need to deal with. These pleasures and pains and enjoyment of similar sentences man Every conscious creature has an interest in avoiding pain . But the reasons to hurt is not necessarily the same as the reasons not to kill . And why not kill a person not identical to the reasons for abstaining from killing a non – person. All things being equal , it is worse to kill the viewpoint of Singer because a person desires and preferences for the future , whereas a non a person – person can not . Singer believes that , with respect to the acts themselves ( no side effects ) , it would be worse for a man than a normal chimp very poor dead ” that ” is not a person ( p. 97) .

Singer agrees with the familiar claim that Michael Tooley , even as a newborn baby is not (yet) a person , an adult cow lying (pp. 84, 98 ) . Singer adjusts his case against killing people to death , whales , dolphins , and perhaps also in monkeys , dogs and cats , pigs , seals and bears. Singer admits that the argument against killing people not in an unmistakable way the murder of , say, chickens or ducks can be applied . His vision for the killing of these animals is as follows. If we raise a chicken in cruel conditions ( a ” factory farm ) , we violate the principle of equality of interests , we do not respect by not having pain inflicted on it ( on the important interests of the chicken human minor interest gourmet tickling meet ) . However, if we raise chicken in humanitarian circumstances and we presume that it is not a person , then it might be possible to kill the chicken for meat as we “replace” the chicken LHE with another . the limitation stems from the replacement of utilitarianism Singer and when we kill the chicken we need to replace it with another fun experience to maintain . on this view , the overall balance of pleasure over pain as we have a wild animal and kill without replacing it , a duck then we have the right thing ” for simple commercial reasons ” ( p. 105 ) . On a wide range of topics , the utilitarian approach that develops Singer gives plausible results . But I think the debate on the slaughter of animals highlights some unattractive features of utilitarianism . Why exactly should be obliged to kill and eat chicken replaced? Why not the pleasure of eating enough to compensate for the lost pleasure of the chicken? Suppose , for example , the chicken consumed by a gourmand bird in many dishes for a few days now allowed would kill the birds ( even without replacement ) ?

Advertisement

It is difficult to see how quantitatively compare the long-term pleasures ( quite small , I think) of the chicken with the delights of gourmet. Maybe singer would appeal to the distinction between the ” main ” interests and less important here . ” But this distinction , which is similar to the distinction between higher and lower pleasures Mill , can be difficult to maintain . Use a model in any case singer not say much about how to go about the distinction largest minor interests . Moreover , it seems to think that the moral to kill the chicken depends replacement. Highly intuitive I would say that if we think that killing a chicken to eat it is morally acceptable , our decision does not rest on the issue of the replacement . The image – that is that we have a balance of pleasure over pain by ( among others) of chickens , is a distinctive feature of utilitarianism , and ungrateful behind the central concern of our moral life .

Singer utilitarianism applies to the problem of income distribution, the conclusion that we are morally criticized for not doing more to combat poverty. He suggests that it would be reasonable to assume that each of us ( who have bad self ) to give , say, ten percent of his salary for those in the ” absolute poverty ” life ( p. 181 ) . Although the poor may not have the need for help for this assistance , eligible for Singer , as supererogatory , if we do not donate ten percent of our salary , we do not know what to do . This is clearly a result of utilitarianism , we often less than we do, and it is a virtue of the book of singer he brings to this result too explicit . Everyone agrees that we are not saints , later, even the most optimistic among us admit that we often blame . However, one can oppose the claim that will not be shipped to Bangladesh a check for ten percent of his salary , it’s wrong . But it’s good – that’s not bad to keep his salary so the challenge beautifully presented by Singer ‘s book is to explain why .

Advertisement