Peter Singer's ethical theory

Mary Elizabeth Escoffery, Purdue University

Abstract

I propose the driving force behind Peter Singer's philosophical theory is the question “how are we to live?” Such a question leads to the issue of ultimate values, and the problem of whether, at the fundamental level, it is possible to give reasons for choosing one way of life in preference to another. If we follow the development of Singer's ethical argument, we can see this is the issue that drives it at the three levels of moral discourse—the practical, the normative, and the metaethical levels. I suggest that when developing his moral argument Singer has three basic goals. As an activist, deeply committed to having a positive impact on the world, he wants to develop a theory of right action, that is, a theory that establishes how we ought to act in our daily lives. As an analytical philosopher, Singer also wants to establish a foundation for his moral theory, in order to argue against the intuitionists' approach to ethics, which he contends has no authority other than claims based on original convictions. And, Singer also hopes to go beyond R. M. Hare's linguistic theory of universal prescriptivism, to be able to claim that the ethical life applies to all human beings, not just to those who embrace the moral point of view. To accomplish his goals Singer starts by accepting the two level utilitarian position, claiming that such a position is a minimal one that we reach by universalizing self-interested decision-making. He then seeks to ground this normative theory in a metaethical argument based on reason understood as cognitive consonance, an a priori structure of human understanding. I propose that Singer is unable to establish his justificatory argument using reason, understood as cognitive consonance. This being the case, he is left with a normative utilitarian argument, which is supported by various ad hominem arguments. Therefore, in the end Singer's moral theory turns out to be an intuitive one, no stronger than other intuitive theories; and he is unable to establish that his utilitarianism is more rational than the egoist's self-interested position.

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

Harris, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Philosophy

COinS