Practical Ethics

Practical Ethics Plot Summary

Introduction

Traditional ethical frameworks have predominantly centered on human interests, relegating non-human beings to mere resources for our use. This anthropocentric view has been challenged by growing evidence that many non-human animals possess cognitive abilities, emotional lives, and forms of self-awareness that demand moral consideration. The fundamental question at stake is whether moral status should be determined by species membership or by morally relevant characteristics that may cross species boundaries. Through careful logical analysis and examination of empirical evidence, we can develop a more coherent ethical framework that extends beyond arbitrary species boundaries. By applying principles of equal consideration of interests and examining the nature of personhood, we can establish a more defensible basis for moral status that includes many non-human beings. This approach requires us to reconsider deeply held assumptions about human uniqueness and superiority, ultimately leading to a more consistent and justifiable ethical stance toward all beings with interests that can be harmed or promoted.

Chapter 1: The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests

Equal consideration of interests stands as a fundamental ethical principle that transcends cultural and historical boundaries. This principle does not demand identical treatment for all beings, but rather equal consideration of comparable interests regardless of whose interests they are. When a being has interests—capacities to experience suffering or enjoyment—these interests deserve to be taken into account in our moral deliberations. The principle's power lies in its impartiality. It requires that we give the same weight to like interests, regardless of irrelevant characteristics such as race, sex, or species. Just as we now recognize that discriminating on the basis of race is unjustifiable because skin color itself is morally irrelevant, we must question whether species membership alone is a valid basis for giving less consideration to the interests of non-human animals. When we examine what makes an interest morally significant, the capacity for suffering emerges as a prerequisite. A being that cannot suffer or experience enjoyment has no interests to consider. Conversely, if a being can suffer, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into account. The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics—it is a prerequisite for having interests at all. This principle has revolutionary implications when applied consistently. If we accept that suffering matters morally regardless of the species of the being experiencing it, we must reconsider many common practices that cause substantial suffering to non-human animals. Factory farming, animal experimentation, and other institutions that routinely sacrifice animal interests for relatively trivial human benefits become morally questionable when subjected to the principle of equal consideration. Equal consideration does not entail equal treatment in all circumstances. Different beings may have different interests based on their capacities. A pig has no interest in voting, so denying pigs the right to vote is not a violation of equal consideration. However, both pigs and humans have an interest in avoiding pain, so inflicting pain on a pig requires the same justification as inflicting it on a human. The principle of equal consideration of interests thus provides a solid foundation for extending our moral concern beyond the boundaries of our own species, while remaining flexible enough to account for genuine differences in interests between different types of beings.

Chapter 2: Personhood Beyond Species Boundaries

The concept of personhood provides a crucial framework for understanding moral status beyond mere sentience. A person, in the philosophical sense, is a being who is self-aware, has a sense of their past and future, and can have desires about their continued existence. This capacity for self-awareness creates a special kind of interest in continued life that goes beyond the interest in avoiding suffering. Evidence increasingly suggests that personhood extends beyond the human species. Great apes demonstrate self-recognition in mirrors, use language to communicate about past and future events, and show awareness of their own mental states. Dolphins recognize themselves in mirrors and exhibit complex social cognition. Even some birds, particularly corvids and parrots, show surprising abilities for self-awareness, tool use, and future planning. The implications of non-human personhood are profound. If what makes killing a person wrong is their self-awareness and desire for continued existence, then killing a non-human person would be wrong for the same reasons. This challenges the assumption that human life always has greater value than non-human life, suggesting instead that the lives of self-aware non-humans may have greater moral significance than the lives of humans who lack self-awareness. This does not mean that all sentient beings have an equal interest in continued life. Beings who lack self-awareness and a concept of their own future may have less interest in continued existence than self-aware beings. Their interest in avoiding suffering remains equally important, but their interest in continued life may differ based on their cognitive capacities. The distinction between persons and non-persons has implications for difficult cases like severely cognitively impaired humans and developing human fetuses. If personhood rather than species membership determines the strength of an interest in continued life, then non-human persons may have a stronger claim to life than human non-persons. This conclusion challenges deeply held intuitions but follows logically from the rejection of speciesism. Recognizing personhood in non-humans requires us to reconsider practices that end the lives of such beings for relatively trivial human interests. It suggests that killing a chimpanzee, elephant, or dolphin may constitute a moral wrong comparable to killing a human person, requiring similarly strong justification.

Chapter 3: Sentience as the Foundation of Moral Status

Sentience—the capacity to experience suffering and enjoyment—establishes the baseline for moral consideration. When we examine the evidence, it becomes clear that many non-human animals possess this capacity. The nervous systems, behavior, and evolutionary history of vertebrates strongly suggest that they experience pain in ways analogous to humans. Fish respond to painful stimuli with behavioral and physiological changes that indicate distress, while mammals and birds show even more complex responses to pain, including anticipatory avoidance. Beyond mere pain perception, many animals exhibit emotional lives of considerable complexity. Elephants mourn their dead, chimpanzees form lasting friendships, and even rats display empathy toward conspecifics in distress. These capacities indicate that many animals have interests that extend beyond the mere avoidance of physical pain to include social connections, freedom of movement, and environmental stimulation. The evidence for animal sentience has significant ethical implications. If sentience is the basis for moral consideration, and many animals are sentient, then their interests deserve consideration comparable to similar human interests. This does not mean that animal interests always equal human interests, but rather that we cannot dismiss animal suffering as morally irrelevant simply because it occurs in a non-human being. In practical terms, this recognition challenges many common practices. Factory farming subjects billions of sentient animals to conditions that cause significant suffering for the relatively trivial human interest in consuming particular foods. Similarly, many forms of animal experimentation inflict severe suffering for marginal benefits. When we apply the principle of equal consideration of interests, these practices become difficult to justify. The moral status of sentient animals also has implications for wildlife management and conservation. Traditional approaches often focus exclusively on species preservation without considering the welfare of individual animals. A more comprehensive ethical approach would consider both conservation goals and the interests of individual sentient animals affected by management decisions. Recognizing the moral status of sentient animals does not require abandoning all human uses of animals, but it does demand that we give proper weight to animal interests when making decisions that affect them. This may require significant changes to current practices and institutions that systematically disregard animal suffering.

Chapter 4: The Ethics of Killing Self-Aware Beings

The wrongness of killing cannot be adequately addressed without examining what makes life valuable and what makes killing wrong. For self-aware beings with a sense of their future, death represents a distinctive kind of harm—it deprives them of the future they desire and anticipate. This future-oriented interest creates a special claim against being killed that goes beyond the interest in avoiding suffering. Preference utilitarianism provides one framework for understanding this wrong. When a self-aware being who prefers to continue living is killed, this thwarts their most fundamental preference. The fact that the victim is not around afterward to experience this thwarting does not diminish the wrong—the harm consists in the preference being frustrated, regardless of whether the being experiences this frustration. The killing of self-aware beings also violates autonomy—the capacity to make choices about one's own life. Autonomy requires the ability to conceive of oneself as existing over time, to form plans, and to make decisions based on one's own values. When we kill an autonomous being against their will, we override their most basic exercise of self-determination. This represents a profound disrespect for their status as independent centers of consciousness with their own purposes. The evidence that some non-human animals possess these capacities for self-awareness and future-directed preferences challenges species-based distinctions regarding the ethics of killing. If what makes killing wrong is the thwarting of future-directed preferences and the violation of autonomy, then killing self-aware non-humans would be wrong for the same reasons that killing humans is wrong. This implies that the lives of chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins, and other self-aware animals deserve protection comparable to that afforded to human lives. This perspective does not entail that all killings of self-aware beings are equally wrong or that such killings can never be justified. The strength of future-directed preferences may vary, as may the richness of the future being foreclosed. What it does entail is that we cannot dismiss the killing of non-human persons as morally trivial based merely on species membership. The burden of justification for killing a self-aware non-human should be comparable to that required for killing a human. The ethics of killing self-aware beings thus requires us to move beyond species boundaries and focus instead on the morally relevant capacities that make death a harm to the individual who dies. This approach provides a more coherent and defensible basis for our intuitions about the wrongness of killing while challenging arbitrary distinctions based on species membership.

Chapter 5: Challenging Speciesism in Practical Ethics

Speciesism refers to the prejudice or bias in favor of members of one's own species and against members of other species. This bias manifests in giving greater weight to the interests of humans simply because they are human, regardless of other morally relevant characteristics. Like racism or sexism, speciesism arbitrarily privileges one group over others based on a characteristic that lacks moral relevance in itself. Traditional ethical frameworks have been predominantly speciesist, drawing a sharp moral line between humans and all other animals. This division has been justified through various arguments: humans possess souls, are made in God's image, have superior cognitive abilities, or possess language. However, these justifications face serious logical problems. If cognitive abilities determine moral status, then we face the uncomfortable implication that some humans (those with severe cognitive disabilities) might have lower moral status than some non-human animals with comparable or superior cognitive abilities. The argument from marginal cases highlights this inconsistency. If we claim that all humans deserve full moral consideration regardless of their individual capacities, but deny similar consideration to non-humans with equal or greater capacities, we are being inconsistent. Either we must grant that some humans have reduced moral status (an unpalatable conclusion for most), or we must extend moral consideration to non-humans with similar relevant capacities. Religious arguments for human uniqueness face similar difficulties. Even if we accept religious premises, it remains unclear why God would value cognitive capacities above other characteristics. Moreover, these arguments fail to provide guidance for those who do not share the religious beliefs in question. The history of human moral progress has largely been a history of expanding our moral circle—moving beyond tribal, racial, and gender boundaries. Extending this circle beyond species boundaries represents the next logical step in this progression. Just as we now recognize that discriminating against humans based on race is unjustifiable, we should recognize that discriminating against beings with interests merely because they are not human is equally unjustifiable. Rejecting speciesism does not mean treating all animals identically or claiming that all animals have the same interests. Rather, it means that we should consider similar interests similarly, regardless of the species of the being in question. This approach leads to a more consistent and defensible ethical framework that avoids arbitrary distinctions based on species membership alone.

Chapter 6: Balancing Competing Interests Across Species

Ethical decisions often involve balancing competing interests, and this becomes particularly complex when the interests of different species are involved. When interests conflict, we must determine which interests are more fundamental and which would suffer greater harm if frustrated. This requires careful consideration of the nature and strength of the interests at stake rather than automatic prioritization of human interests. Basic interests in avoiding suffering and fulfilling fundamental needs generally outweigh non-basic interests in convenience or pleasure. This principle applies regardless of species. A human's interest in enjoying a particular food does not outweigh an animal's interest in avoiding severe suffering, just as one human's interest in entertainment would not justify inflicting severe suffering on another human. In some cases, however, genuine conflicts between basic interests arise. Medical research that causes animal suffering might prevent greater human suffering. In such cases, we must consider whether alternatives exist, whether the expected benefits are likely to materialize, and whether we would consider the research justified if it used humans with similar cognitive capacities. The principle of equal consideration does not require treating unequal interests equally. When a human and a non-human have different interests at stake due to their different capacities, these differences matter morally. A self-aware being with plans for the future may have a stronger interest in continued life than a being without such awareness, though both have an equal interest in avoiding suffering. Practical decision-making must also consider indirect effects. Policies that seem to maximize good consequences in individual cases might, if universalized, undermine important values like respect for autonomy or the prohibition against treating sentient beings as mere resources. These considerations may justify maintaining certain principles even when violating them might seem to produce better consequences in particular cases. The balancing of interests should be impartial, giving no automatic priority to human interests simply because they are human. This does not mean that human interests never outweigh non-human interests, but rather that the species of the beings involved is not itself morally relevant to the decision. What matters is the nature and strength of the interests themselves.

Summary

The moral status of non-human beings cannot be determined by species membership alone but must be based on morally relevant characteristics such as sentience and self-awareness. When we apply principles of equal consideration impartially, we find that many common practices involving animals become difficult to justify, while the recognition of personhood in some non-humans challenges our assumptions about the unique moral status of human beings. This ethical framework does not require identical treatment for all beings but demands that we consider similar interests similarly, regardless of species. By moving beyond anthropocentrism toward a more inclusive moral community, we develop a more consistent and defensible ethical stance—one that acknowledges our special obligations to beings who can suffer and who have a sense of their own existence. This perspective not only benefits non-human beings but also strengthens our moral reasoning by eliminating arbitrary distinctions and focusing on what truly matters in our ethical relationships with all sentient beings.

About Author

Loading...

Peter Singer

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.

Read more

Related Books by Peter Singer

Loading...

The Life You Can Save

Peter Singer

How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty

★★★★☆4.2