Ethics is about PEOPLE. Animal treatment is about EMOTIONS. People before animals, see? The day you try to rationalize the treatment of animals based on the ethics of people is the day you dehumanize people. Which may in fact be fine for the animal rights movement and PETA's Ingrid Newkirk who once said without irony "I don't care if animal research cured cancer and AIDS, I would still be opposed to it." but it's not an entirely ethical position. At least not in the sense that the last 3000 years of human society views the term "Ethics".

No it's more akin to simply levelling the differences between human and animals or simply counting heads. In fact it's a complete inversion of ethics. Would Mr. Singer for example save 2 two drowning men on death row versus one heart surgeon? Is the suffering of 10,000 cattle worth 50 children? That kind of simple cold calculus of the actuary and the economist is in fact a negation of everything that ethics is. Ethics is not what makes you feel good about yourself or that which causes you to act kindly. It's the evaluation of justice versus necessity. Mr. Singer however impressive his credentials and sincere his intent is pulling the suffering-free wool over our eyes.

between saving two strangers and saving my daughter, there is no question in my mind about what I would do. I would save my daughter. My daughter would be my responsibility. The strangers are not--at least, not in the same way. I think the world could not function or survive if parents did not feel insanely protective of their children, and in spite of the numerical practicality of saying that two lives are better than one, I think there are a number of reasons why in reality, this is not really correct. For one thing, our society is built on relationships, and there is a real primacy in the relationship of humans with their children. I believe this relationship is hard-wired (though I hate that term) and is the model for all other kinds of nurturing and other positive values that we have in society. In fact, I would have to believe that one of the reasons that Dr. Singer himself feels so confident in his adult life is because he probably had a mother who, like so many of us, had a murderous look in her eye if anyone tried to interfere with her little cub.

If I were to "eat local" there would be no rice, no fresh greens for months (too much snow to use cold frames), probably no wheat. Rye, potatos, root veggies, apples, cabbage. The diet of my ancestors. Try going vegan on that. :p

It's all well and good to espouse eating locally. When you live in California. Zone 9. I am in Zone 3. They aren't really being asked to sacrifice anything. They can grow RICE for the love of mIke!

Ethics is not "about people." What does that even mean?

Ethics comes from the Greek word "Ethos" (welcome to Philosophy 101 again) which means 'habit' or 'behavior'. It is 'about' how we orient ourselves in the world, and what sorts of decisions we make. There is not a divide between 'emotions' and 'ethics' necessarily, nor is there a divide between, um, 'people' and 'liking animals'. How you treat animals would be indicative of your...ethics!

Secondly, Singer talks about 'objective suffering.' The problem with utilitarianism and other like-minded systems of thought is that there are WAY too many assumptions made right from the start. What is 'objective suffering?' Claiming that a 'chicken has consciousness' should make us ask, what is consciousness then? How do you demonstrate it? How do we measure suffering? Singer implies throughout his philosophy that you CAN measure suffering, hence his 'save the 2 people instead of your daughter'. He believes that such things are inherently measurable and that therefore we can make rational ethical decisions based upon a sort of calculus of suffering and value.

If you question that assumption (which I would STRONGLY encourage you to do), his entire system falls apart. What formula in this blessed world can possibly measure suffering?

That said, while I find Singer's 'reasons' for animal ethics ridiculously spurious (it seems like, as Nietzsche would put it, he wants to create 'objective proof' after the fact to justify how he 'feels'), I think his basic beliefs are, well, nice. They make one think; they make one look at creation differently; they encourage empathy which is, in my belief, a Good Thing. But I can't provide any Objective Rationale for that!

I can't believe that no-one has brought up the fact that this guy quite literally believes that no infant under the completely arbitrary age of one year has a right to exist. This man has become so enveloped in concepts of utility I get a chill just thinking of him--he is a hollow man. Compassion for all the chickens in the world can't change that.

krzmarzick wrote: My father was a farmer and rancher who worked his own place for most of his 78 years, until he was taken from us by a drunk driver. We raised cattle for our own use and for sale. He never mistreated an animal in his life. He loathed veal and thought the concept vile.

I don't know which article you read, but I find it obvious that Singer would have applauded your father for his farm and his ethical treatment of animals. Singer is saying we should treat animals more like your father did if we are going to raise and consume them. Was your letter just a knee-jerk reaction to anything you believe might be "liberal?"

gene writes: Why should we do good to others?

To ease suffering. He states that very plainly.

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?

Because then somebody can do the same to you. And to others. Again, his belief is that we need to ease suffering, not increase it.

More knee-jerk reaction in the form of a letter?

Xanthro First, Peter Singer is a huge hypocrite.

The whole notion that it is unjust for some to live well while others starve, but that the former can buy off his personal guilt by donating 20% of his income is beyond belief.

If one really believes that we have a moral obligation to help others in the manner professed, then donate 80%.

"I don't think that word means what you think it means!"

He is a hypocrit because he backs up his beliefs with his money? You are merely arguing about the amount not that he does not back up his beliefs with his wallet. That does not make him a hypocrit.

No need to wonder why these folks vote Republican.....