- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Singer, in the end, is a hypocrite. I don't mean this in a mean-spirited, name-calling way, but in the sense that he doesn't practice what he preaches. To wit: he bases his ethics on Utilitarianism, i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number, but his ethical framework cannot answer the fundamental begging-of-the-question: Why should we do good to others?
Yes, I know the pat answer: we should do good to others so that they will do good to us. But here's a question that Singer and other Utilitarians can't answer: If by force or by guile I can steal everything he owns and kill him and get away with it, why shouldn't I? Moreover, on what basis would he (and others) condemn my actions? It's one thing to say, "I shall not steal and murder." It's another thing to say, "You should not steal and murder." Indeed, the word should in Utilitarianism is not a moral word; it is a practical word. If I can state a more practical reason why I should steal and murder than he can state why I shouldn't, then my argument wins.
More questions for Singer et al.: What are rights? From where do they derive? (Remember, the father of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, called the concept of rights "nonsense on stilts." Bentham at least saw all the way through to the logical conclusion of his ethical theory.)
My point is that in the end, Utilitarianism founders on its own assumptions.
