If you're willing to save a child drowning in front of you, why not care about a hungry child in Africa? In Peter Singer's view, the two are no different. How to get along with strangers on the other side of the world is an ethical dilemma shared in the increasingly interconnected era of globalization.
The Australian philosopher Peter Singh, known for his advocacy of animal liberation, is also one of the most controversial philosophers. His radical views were often criticized and attacked, making him a contemporary bullfly philosopher. In addition to animal liberation, what other ideas did Peter Singer say that sounded bizarre? Why is it that "eating vegetarian food" and "assisting the poor overseas" have an internal logical consistency?
The following is an authorized excerpt from A Brief History of Philosophy: Forty Lectures on Western Philosophy. The author, Nigel Warburton, is a professor of philosophy at the Open University in the United Kingdom, and is particularly adept at speaking difficult philosophical concepts in plain language. In the following, Nigel Warburton vividly explains Peter Singer's main ideas and inner philosophical spirit.
The original author | Nigel Warburton
Excerpt from | Li Yongbo
A Brief History of Philosophy: Forty Lectures on Western Philosophy, by Nigel Warburton, translated by Lü Pin/Zhu Zhu, Republic of china| Beijing Daily Press, June 2021.
If you are willing to save the child drowning in front of you,
Why not care about the hungry children in Africa?
You are in a garden and know that there is a pond in the garden. Then you hear the sound of water splashing, and some people shouting. You realize that a small child has fallen into the water and may drown. What would you do? Keep going your way? Obviously, even if you agree to meet your friends and stop to save someone and make you late, you will definitely value your child's life more than punctuality. The pond is shallow but muddy. If you go to save the child, you will definitely break the best pair of shoes on your feet, but if you use this as an excuse to stand by, surely no one can understand such a reason. It's a question about what it means to be human and value life. A child's life is far more precious than any pair of shoes, no matter how expensive that pair of shoes is. People who don't think so are terrible people. You're going to jump into the water to save people, aren't you? Of course you will. Similarly, you may be rich enough to save an African child from starvation or to save him from dying of a tropical disease that could have been cured, and you may not cost much more than the price of that pair of shoes.
So why aren't you paying to help African kids – let's say you don't have one yet? Find the right charity, donate a little money, and you can save at least one life. There are many childhood diseases that are easy to prevent, with relatively little money to get vaccinated and buy medicines. But why do you feel differently about African children whose lives are in danger and those who are about to drown? If you feel the same way about both, then you're really unusual. Most of us have different attitudes toward both, although we would be embarrassed about it.
Australian philosopher Peter Singh (born 1946) argues that there is not much difference between a child drowning in front of you and a child starving in Africa. We should show more concern for those around the world who need help. If we hadn't done something, the children who would have survived would have died. This is not speculation, it's a fact we know: every year thousands of children die from poverty-related causes, such as hunger, while in developed countries we often throw away bad food in the fridge simply because we forgot to eat it in time. In poor areas of the world, some people can't even drink clean water. Therefore, we should give up one or two luxuries that we don't really need to help those who are born with nothing. It is indeed difficult to guide life with this philosophy, but this does not mean that Singer's ideas are wrong.
You might say that if I don't donate money to charity, someone else might. The problem is that we can all be bystanders, and everyone thinks there should be something to do. Many people around the world live in extreme poverty, with no food on a daily basis, and if only a small number of people take action, they will not be able to meet the needs of these poor people. When a child drowns in front of you, it's easy to see if anyone else will lend a hand, and for those who have suffered in faraway lands, it's hard to understand how our actions will improve their lives. But that doesn't mean doing nothing is the best solution.
A related issue is the fear that providing aid overseas will make the poor there dependent on the rich instead of growing food, building wells and building hospices on their own, with consequences that may, over time, be worse than not giving aid at all. We know that it is true that in some cases, a country may become dependent on foreign aid. However, this does not mean that we should stop donating to charities and refuse to lend a helping hand, what we should do is to carefully consider the way these charities provide assistance. For example, providing the poor with some basic medical conditions can give them a better chance of becoming self-reliant and free from external assistance. Some charities are very good at training locals to help themselves, build wells to provide clean drinking water or conduct health and hygiene education. Singer's view is not that we can donate money, but that money should be donated to charities that are most likely to benefit the world's worst living conditions and help these people live independently. The point he wants to make is very clear: you are highly likely to have a meaningful impact on the lives of others, and you should.
Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher, animal liberator, professor of bioethics at Princeton University in the United States, and emeritus professor of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He specializes in applied ethics, thinking about ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He currently teaches in the Department of Philosophy at Monashio University in Australia.
Singer is one of the most famous living philosophers, in part because he challenges several widely accepted views, and some of his own views are highly controversial. Many people believe that human life is absolutely sacred and that it is always wrong to kill people. Singh doesn't see it that way, arguing that euthanasia may be the appropriate option in some cases. For example, someone who has been in a vegetative state for a long time cannot be reversed, that is, just exists as an unconscious body, and has no chance of recovery, and has no hope for the future. He argues that there is no point in letting these people live in this state because they don't have the ability to be happy or make choices about how they survive. They don't have a strong desire to continue living because they simply don't have the ability to generate wishes.
It is precisely because of this view that some people hate him so much that they even call him a Nazi, although it is known that his parents were Viennese Jews who fled Nazi rule, the reason is only that Singh defended euthanasia in the above-mentioned special circumstances. Those who insulted Singh said the Nazis killed thousands of sick and physically or mentally disabled people on the pretext that they were not worth living. However, it is wrong to call the Nazis' murderous plans euthanasia, because the massacres carried out by the Nazis were not to prevent unnecessary suffering, but to get rid of those whom the Nazis scornfully called "useless mouths". In the eyes of the Nazis, these people could not work and would pollute the Aryan race, and the Nazis acted without any mercy. In contrast, Singer is concerned with the quality of life in special circumstances. He certainly would not have supported the Nazi policy of genocide, although some of his opponents deliberately exaggerated it, making the two completely different views sound very similar.
Animal Liberation Theory:
Species discrimination is more neglected than racial discrimination
Singer first became famous for his theories about how to treat animals, and his writings on this subject were influential, notably Animal Liberation, published in 1975. In the early 19th century, Bentham argued for the need to take animal suffering seriously, but in the 1970s, when Singer's writings began to deal with the subject, few philosophers still saw the subject in the same way. Like Bentham and Müller, Singer was a consequentialist, which meant that he believed that the best action was the one that produced the best outcome, and that in order to get the best results, we needed to consider what was best for all interested parties, including animals. Like Bentham, Singer argues that when it comes to animals' interests, the most critical thing is their ability to perceive pain. As humans, we sometimes feel more pain than animals in similar situations because we have the ability to reason and understand what is happening to us. This also needs to be taken into account.
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, CITIC Publishing Group, August 2018.
Singer calls those who do not value animal interests as speciesists. There are similarities between species discrimination and racial discrimination and sexism. Racists treat members of their own races differently and give them special treatment without giving members of other races what they deserve. For example, a white racist might give a job offer to another white person, even if a more qualified black person applied for the job. This is clearly unfair and wrong. Speciesism is very similar to racism, and its roots lie in seeing things only from the perspective of one's own species, or in favor of one's own species. When deciding what needs to be done, many people only take people into account and ignore animals. This is wrong because animals also feel pain, and their suffering should also be included in giving equal respect does not mean treating every animal, including humans, in exactly the same way. If you wave your hand and pat a horse's hips, it probably won't cause much pain to the horse because the horse's skin is thick. However, if you do the same thing to a baby, it can bring severe pain. But if hitting a horse causes the same level of pain as hitting a baby, then the act is as morally wrong as hitting a baby. Of course, you shouldn't do either of these things.
Singer believes that we should all become vegetarians because we can live well without eating animals. Most of the process of producing food by raising and slaughtering animals causes suffering to the animals, and some animal husbandry operations are very cruel and can cause the animals to feel severe pain. For example, some factory-bred chickens live in cramped cages, some intensive pigs are kept in pens that are too small to turn around, and the process of cattle being slaughtered is often extremely painful for them. Singh argues that it is morally wrong to continue this way of animal husbandry, and that even if a more humane approach could be adopted, it would be unnecessary to produce meat through animal husbandry, because it would be easy to survive without eating meat. To promote this idea, he even added a lentil soup recipe to a book to encourage readers to look for alternatives to meat.
Farm animals aren't the only ones ravaged by humans. Scientists use animals for their research, and mice and guinea pigs, cats, dogs, monkeys, and even chimpanzees can become experimental animals, many of whom suffer and suffer as a result of being drugged or electrocuted. Singer proposes a way to test whether a study is morally acceptable: Would we do the same experiment on a person with a damaged brain? If the answer is no, then it would be wrong to perform the same experiment on animals with a similar level of mental consciousness. It's a hard test to pass, and not many experiments can get people to answer "yes." Therefore, Singh strongly opposed the use of animals in research.
Singh's discussion of ethical issues is based on the idea of consistency, which is to deal with similar situations in a similar way. If it is wrong to harm humans because it causes suffering, then whether our actions cause suffering in other animals should also be taken into account. Suppose that in a situation where the pain of hurting an animal is greater than the pain of hurting a person, and you have to choose one of them, it is better to hurt the person.
Like Socrates many years ago, Singh took a personal risk when he spoke out and discussed how he should live. Protests have been held against some of his lectures, and he has received death threats. But he represents the best traditions of philosophy: constantly challenging the views that are widely held, his own way of life conforms to the philosophical ideas he advocates, and he is ready to challenge the different ideas of those around him and actively participate in public discussion.
Above all, Singh bases himself on well-researched facts and makes sound arguments to support his conclusions. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, you can see that he is a sincere philosopher. After all, philosophy develops in debate, relying on people to use logic and evidence in opposing positions. If you disagree with Singh's views, for example, about the moral status of animals or the circumstances under which euthanasia is morally acceptable, reading his work is still very meaningful and can prompt you to think hard about your point of view and what facts, reasons, and principles to support your point of view.
Philosophy begins with the awkward questions and insurmountable challenges posed by Socrates, and as long as modern bullfly philosophers like Singer exist, socrates' spirit is likely to continue to shape the future of philosophy.
Written | Nigel Warburton
Editor| Li Yongbo
Proofreader | Lee Sai-fai