Abstract
Throughout history there have been philosophers who were literally pilloried for their beliefs. Peter Singer, born in Australia in 1946 is perhaps one of the most controversial and yet important of today's philosophers. The paper briefly examines some of the arguments, which Singer has presented in such books as "Practical Ethics" and "Should the Baby Live?" which advocate euthanasia and a rethinking of what he considers to be outdated attitudes toward the sanctity of human life. The paper also touches on his controversial views on abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research.

From the Paper
"By writing persuasive articles about people's moral obligation to give away money, Singer has caused tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to be donated to famine relief organizations. Yet Singer also believes that it is OK to kill babies. These may strike you as contradictory beliefs, but they make sense once you understand Singer is a utilitarian. For Utilitarians, the moral task is to create utility--to increase the amount of happiness in the world, or at least decrease the pain." (Oppenheimer 24). It is important, here, to define Utilitarianism. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Utilitarianism is "a tradition ...that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness--not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it"(West 1)."

Tags:abortion, euthanasia, stem, cell, research

Abstract
This paper argues that Peter Singer's criticism of the conservative position vis-a-vis abortion is not without merit. Specifically, the paper argue that Singer's stance that the unborn are not really human is credible if one recognizes that fetuses (as a general medical rule) cannot survive independent of the mother before at least five months have elapsed. The paper suggests that his arguments are tolerable within tight limitations.

Table of Contents:
Abstract
Body of Paper
Conclusion

From the Paper
"Still, while it is easy to sharply criticize Singer for his cavalier attitude towards the unborn, a case can be presented that abortion - and the idea that fetuses are non-human - is tolerable within tight limitations. Specifically, any fetus which is present in the mother's womb before 18-20 weeks is most likely incapable of living outside of the womb; in that sense, it is a part of the mother and, if she so desires, the mother can rid herself of this "part". To put it another way, the fetus is a "bundle of cells" that is clearly not human in even the most generous sense and that makes it, for want of a better term, "disposable". While this writer is not a proponent of abortion as a general rule, it seems intuitive that something incapable of life outside the mother is therefore incapable of being considered a person in the same way that a child is a person. Going further, this sort of approach is perfectly in keeping with Singer's own belief that non-rational beings (the severely disabled, the very young) lacking the capacity for independent thought are also undeserving of the title, "human" (though this writer, as noted in a previous paper, finds Singer's argument in this respect disquieting and unethical)."

Tags:fetus, pregnant, unborn, womb

Abstract
This paper focuses on Singer's application of the principle of utility to the ethics of abortion. The first part of the paper discusses how Singer refined the utilitarian principles popularly associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to his own principle of preference utilitarianism. The second part examines how Singer applies this preference utilitarianism to conclude that abortion is completely moral and ethical. The last section is a critical examination of Singer's utilitarian approach to abortion, as he articulates in the book "Writings on an Ethical Life."

From the Paper
"Recognizing the difficulty of measuring pleasure or happiness, Singer instead proposes a principle of utility based on interests. He writes that "my own interests cannot, simply because they are my interests, count more than the interests of anyone else" (16). Instead of acting according to our own self-interests, Singer calls on people to take on a universal point of view. In essence, one's own interests and ideas matter only when seen in their consequence to everyone else's interests. Singer calls this view "preference utilitarianism.""

Tags:mill, bentham, utilitarianism, moral

Abstract
This paper criticizes Peter Singer's views on infanticide in "Practical Ethics". Singer believes that children should not be considered people until they have existed outside the mother's womb for at least a month and that physicians are morally justified in killing disabled infants. The paper considers this a disturbingly utilitarian approach that weighs human life on the basis of how useful and convenient it is to society and to those who will care for it. The paper claims that this approach offers an intellectual justification for the Nazis' behavior in WWII. At its most dangerous, the paper concludes, Singer's concept of the utility of infanticide may unjustly allow people to determine who should live - and who should die.

From the Paper
"In our western culture, we are very often taught that all human life is precious and that the lives of the very young are particularly precious - not least of all because they represent the future. Controversial ethicist Peter Singer, however, feels otherwise. Specifically, Singer has long held the view that children should not be considered people until they have existed outside the mother's womb for at least a month (thirty days) and that physicians are morally justified in killing some infants "on the spot" if those infants are disabled. In Singer's estimation, are not self-aware (therefore not human) and their lives are certainly of no greater value - actually of lesser value - than that of dumb animals like the chimpanzee or dog (Klusendorf, para.1; Singer, 122-123). Singer proceeds to argue that infants are not rational, self-conscious beings with a desire to live. Indeed, if killing an infant child (most especially a disabled one) will increase the happiness of other parties (principally the parents but, really, anyone who might stand to gain from the death of the infant) than taking the child's life is permissible; it is, in short, a profoundly utilitarian approach that weighs human life on the basis of how useful (and how "convenient") it is to society and to those who will care for it. As a final addendum, Singer insists that infanticide is only objectionable if its commission would bring about unhappiness to the parents (Klusendorf, para.5-8). It is a stunning moral view and a deeply troubling one."

Tags:ethical, Nazi, Jew, killing, murder, violence, moral, justification, disabled, child, children

Abstract
This paper provides a discussion of bioethics professor Peter Singer's arguments against eating meat as they are illustrated in two of his works, 'Animal Liberation' and 'Practical Ethics'. The discussion then voices several objections to the philosopher's argument.

From the Paper
"Professor of bioethics at Princeton University Peter Singer's argument regarding eating meat can be illustrated from two of his seminal works 'Animal Liberation' and 'Practical Ethics'. This analysis will provide a full discussion of Singer's arguments against eating meat. Several objections to those arguments from the author will then be offered. A conclusion will address why these objections are strong enough for the author to continue his practice of eating meat. Singer's arguments against eating meat stem from his views of rights and ..."

Tags:rights, value, harm, pain, pleasure, interests, utilitarianism, species, animals

Abstract
The paper examines Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals" and the claim made in the book that the interests of non-human animals are as equally deserving of our consideration as the interests of human beings. The paper goes on to discuss if there is a morally significant difference between the interests of human and non-human animals.

From the Paper
"In consequence, therefore, "equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact" (Singer, 1975, p.5). It is the notion of respecting the feelings of others, through a mutual understanding of the way in which life's experiences affect each individual despite any outward differences such as intelligence, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, and despite the differences between the species. Human animals and non-human animals, although different in some ways, share the same capacity to feel, which, according to Singer (1975) implies that they should be treated by humans in accordance with their interests at heart rather than those of the human race.
"Singer (1975) defends his views by pointing out the fact that human beings are undeniably unequal. Human societies are, and always have been, built upon the views, values, and beliefs of the majority, which inevitably results in injustice, discrimination, and inequality. It was this understanding, especially within recent history, that has enabled significant changes within the law to provide adequate provisions for disadvantaged groups within contemporary societies. These laws, consequently, are based on the fundamental human rights of all people, regardless of race, religion, or creed, and which reflects the understanding of the value of human life or existence."

Tags:equality, human, rights, societies, ethnic, emotions, non-human, relationships, moral, beings, law, freedom

Abstract
This paper explains how Peter Singer and Garrett Hardin share similar thoughts on the problem of overpopulation and the economic and scientific response to its ensuing effects. The paper points out the differences in their viewpoints.

From the Paper
"Peter Singer and Garrett Hardin share similar thoughts on the problem of overpopulation and the economic and scientific response to its ensuing effects. Both take stringent views on aid and agree that assisting people in poverty does not always help to erase poverty. In many cases, it encourages those in penury to further contribute to the epidemic without addressing central issues. There is difference between Hardin's take on aid and Singer's though the difference is nuanced. Singer concludes that we do not have an obligation to give aid but..."

Tags:Singer, Hardin, overpopulation, consequentialist, Consequentialism, poverty

Abstract
This paper critically reviews contemporary Australian utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer's piece, a chapter from Practical Ethics entitled "Quality for Animals," outlining his main arguments and offering criticism of them.

From the Paper
"In his controversial utilitarian work, Practical Ethics, modern Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, includes a chapter entitled "Equality for Animals. Singer has throughout the book so far argued for a sort of utilitarianism, based on the original theories of founders of this ethical philosophy such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, a utilitarianism that hopes for ethical, equal, and fair treatment of all humankind, all people, however diverse, who might walk our planet and interact in our society. Yet, in this chapter, Singer extends his hopes for equality and ethical treatment beyond the human realm; he argues that all members of the animal kingdom, not just our species Homo sapiens, deserve to be treated equally. Likening what he has dubbed speciesism to the dread occurrence of racism, Singer makes an overall simple argument against this speciesism which humans seem to have, augmenting with many and complex sub-arguments."

Tags:animal, rights, philosophy

Abstract
In this paper, the utilitarian philosophy of Singer provides a limited vision of the human perspective on modern animal rights, as the self important conception of the human self often overrides the greater good of Nature. This insular view of Nature and of human relationships with animals is a major problem for utilitarians, as they suggest that animals must invariably not have a say in regards to their equal right to in the natural order.

From the Paper
Thank you for purchasing a customized research paper from Essay Experts LLC. We strive to deliver to our customers the most accurate and up-to-date research each and every time we prepare a custom work. Your Writer ID: #255 Order ID: 12665 Topic: Ethics Disclaimer: This document should be used in precisely the same way you would use any article you might find in your local research library. Remember, you must cite it properly just like you would any other source listed in your bibliography. If you have any questions regarding citing

Tags:singer, animal, rights