Singer's views are, perhaps more often than we'd like, our own. Many of us have read about people languishing in vegetative states, restrained in wheelchairs or totally unconscious, and have thought, "What a waste of money." If we also note that the money could be doing real good, curing malaria or feeding a hungry child, and if we further grant that it wouldn't be so hard to spend the money one place instead of the other, then we have to acknowledge Singer for having the courage to say publicly what most of us can hardly admit to ourselves.
Many philosophers, like Brown's Dan Brock and Tufts's Norman Daniels, agree in good part with Singer. The philosopher James Rachels made many of Singer's points before he did. And [Jeremy] Bentham got there before everybody, even on seemingly modern issues like animal rights.
"As a theoretical contributor, he's not the most philosophically significant," says Shelly Kagan of Yale, who often agrees with Singer. "But he moves the reader, shows the reader what's already inherent in the reader's own beliefs. Compare the gobs of money given to charity because of his article 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' to the three dollars given because of my book.
"I think Singer is very admired among professional philosophers, whether or not you're a utilitarian," said Kagan. He said that while his wife was reading a New York Times piece about the controversy at Princeton over Singer, "she looked up and said, 'These are the same views as you have—why aren't they picketing your classes?' It's because he defends his views to the popular press. And more power to him. He's fighting the good fight."
The philosophers who don't think Singer is fighting the good fight fall into several camps. Some, like [Adrienne] Asch, wonder how Singer can be so confident about assigning preferences and guessing at people's happiness. Religious philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff would wonder how Singer can be so sure that there is no God. And many ethicists remain committed to rule-based systems of ethics. From Abraham to Jesus to [Immanuel] Kant, adhering to certain rules, whether from religious obligation or abstract duty, has been the core of the ethical life. If you have an ethical or religious commitment to pacifism, for example, you won't accept the utilitarian's willingness sometimes to kill. And if you have an unshakable belief that even severely handicapped children have an equal claim on our time and money, then you won't like the utilitarian's favoring of healthy, conscious, rational persons.
(Mark Oppenheimer, "Who Lives? Who Dies?: The Utility of Peter Singer," Christian Century 119 [3-10 July 2002]: 24-9, at 27-8)
Note from KBJ: Singer is actually quite good at the theoretical stuff. It's just that he devotes most of his time and energy to practical matters. Incidentally, I would like to see some empirical work on Singer's influence, both in and out of the philosophical community. I've heard it said—repeatedly—that Singer has influenced many people to (1) become vegetarians and (2) donate money to charity (especially for famine relief). Without empirical support, these are just assertions, hunches, guesses, or, when coming from like-minded philosophers, prejudices.
