That subject was brought by Stefan. The book Peter Singer: Practical Ethics;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, which also has a 2nd
edition (1993 I think), deals with Ethics on the utilitarianism point
of view. It discusses many subjects, like animal rights, abortion,
euthanasia... and is quite interesting, and logical. I would recommend
it to anyone interested in the subject.

I do not intend to discuss thoroughly about that, but as the author
advocates vegetarianism in view of his opinions about animal rights,
and as many raw-fooders are vegetarians, it seems relevant to talk
a little bit about that issue.

Brief summary

First of all, P. Singer starts from the principle that "ethical behavior"
should aim at maximizing happiness, minimizing suffering. All humans
are equal, i.e. a certain amount of suffering of a man counts as much
as the same amount of suffering of another. Actually, there are slight
variations (classical utilitarianism, preference utilitarianism,
total utilitarianism), and he explores the consequences of each of
these principles (and has interesting conclusions about abortion and
euthanasia).

He doesn't really discuss the "validity" of that principle, but sort of
postpones it until the last chapter, called "whi act morally?" (as
opposed to acting selfishly).

He also says that, as we do not make any distinction among humans,
we have to take into account animal suffering as well, and in fact
minimize the total amount of suffering (of all humans and animals).
However, as animals do not have a "plan" for their life, killing a (adult)
human is worse than killing an animal (there are some more subtleties,
but it would be too long for me to summarize them). However, killing
an animal is, except in some extreme cases (killing without making
it suffer, without affecting its peers, etc...), very wrong, and in
practice, one shouldn't use animal flesh for food.

Comments:

1) I find his justification of behaving ethically very weak. Animals do not
behave ethically, but their actions are driven by their instinct, by
egoism, by altruism... And that does not always correspond to an
ethical behavior. As humans, we must acknowledge that we are not 100%
rational, and that if we son't take into account the irrational part
of us, we may end up hating ourselves.

2) As technology progresses, especially in biology, new ethical issues
appear, so at least the point of view of P. Singer is interesting and
the job of developing it was done with mastery. However, as I said in 1),
I won't necessary agree to follow his recommendations in my life, since
I am not an ethical being but a human being (with his instincts, etc.)

3) Utilitarianism is universal, but doesn't solve all problems, even
if everyone agreed to behave ethically. It is most of the time
difficult to weigh the pros and cons about an issue. I think his
conclusions about abortion and euthanasia are logical, but I am sure
that anyone can find some problem which is subject to controversy.

4) His argument that animals deserve as much consideration as humans
seems very weak to me, if existent at all. I suspect that he wants to
justify his vegetarian dogma, and disguises his pseudo-argument under
a pseudo-scientific demonstration. One CAN build a theory of ethics by
taking animals into account, as well as build a theory of ethics by
giving animals less importance, or no importance at all. It is a matter
of personal choice. Anyway, regardless of the opinion about animals,
his conslusions about abortion and euthanasia still hold.

5) Granted his stance about animal suffering, I disagree about his
opinion that taking the life of an animal is not as bad as taking the
life of a human. If I was threatened by someone with a knife, I wouldn't
be afraid because my life plan has not been completed yet. I don't
want to die because... I don't want to die. That's merely instinctive.

6) Despite the fact that utilitarianism is universal, it seems to me
that, paradoxically, it leaves some room to relativism. Humans are
social beings, and everything functions better when they organize
in groups (families, communities, countries...). The mere existence
of those groups implies that their stability has to be taken into
account. So,  being more generous towards, say, members of one's
family than towards strangers is not incompatible with utilitarianism,
because an equal treatment would probably result in the destruction
of the structure of the family. And over the centuries, societies
have edicted many explicit and implicit rules which ensure their
stability, each society having arrived to a different solution. It
would be difficult to say which solution is the best (it would be
like comparing a rabbit and a pigeon, which are both products of
natural selection).

My conclusion: there have been many attempts to propose universal solutions
to ethical issues. P. Singer's is very interesting, but is not the
only one. Another way would be analyzing the findings of ethology, to
understand our instincts and animal societies better. But I am sure
that many beliefs, which stem from religious, philosophical and social values
that are particular to each civilization, are deeply ingrained in
(almost) everyone's mind. That leads to intolerance, zealotry,
misunderstandings, and outright aggressivity. Understanding and
respecting other's beliefs is as important as trying to find an
"universal" solution which might be rejected.

Anyway, reading his books hasn't made me change my behavior. I agree
with some of his conclusions, but by no means all his conclusions.
But his reasonings are quite interesting, and give a very complete
overview of classical arguments about many issues.

Best wishes,

Jean-Louis
[log in to unmask]