Chapter 1
What popular conceptions of ethics does Singer attempt to put to rest? (that it consists of simple moralisms, that it chiefly concerns sex, that it is dependent on religion, that it fails to apply to life)
What does he believe about the argument that ethics are subjective? (problems arise when one claims that ethics are entirely dependent on a society’s mores, or alternately, that each individual can decide for him/herself)
What does he argue are the reasons why we should apply ethical reasoning to our assertions of values?
By what criteria can we say that someone’s behavior accords with ethical values? (person must believe that what they are doing is right; justification cannot be based merely on self-interest)
What are some grounds for deciding if something is ethical that have been proposed? (perspective of Impartial Observer, Kantian view that we should only approve of what we would wish applied to all, Smart’s view that all count equally, Rawls’s view that we should wish for what those would choose who didn’t know who would benefit and who would lose by it)
What is Singer’s own view? What does he mean by a broadly defined utilitarianism? (should seek what best furthers the interests of all those affected)
What complications are suggested by his example of the person who wonders whether to share all his fruits?
What are some other considerations which Singer notes should receive attention? (human rights, justice, sanctity of life)
Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, chapter 3, “Equality for Animals?” (from online version at www.utilitarian.net)
What is the principle which Singer believes validates belief in the equality of human beings? (equality of consideration of interests) Why should it not be limited in application to human beings? (non-human beings also have interests) 1
To what does he ascribe the belief that the interests of animals are not important? (prejudice) What other prejudices have people later decided to discard? (against women and those of other races) How can we discern prejudices in our own beliefs? (must distance ourselves from our assumptions, 1)
Who does Singer mention as one of the first to promote the interests of animals? On what basis does Betham argue that they should be granted rights? (they suffer, that is, they can feel pain and enjoyment, 2) Is this different from the claim that animals have interests? (no, because the capacity for enjoyment or suffering is a prerequisite for having interests, 2)
What is the point of the author’s contrast between a stone and a mouse? Do they both have interests? What term does he use for the capacity to suffer or enjoy? (sentience, 2)
Why does Singer compare “speciesists” to racists? (2) In what ways does he try to demonstrate that preferring the interests of humans to that of animals may be an instance of “speciesism”?
Are there cases in which a human victim suffers more than a non-human one? (3, added element of anticipatory fear) Why might this be the case? What example does he give? Is it worse to slap a baby than a horse? (3)
How might the argument that human interests are more important because they can anticipate events backfire? (infants and retarded adults might also not anticipate, 3) Are there cases in which an animal may suffer more because of its limited understanding? (capturing an animal, 4)
What does Singer view as the most common nexus between humans and animals? (eating them, 5) Are there situations in which eating animals may be a necessity, in Singer’s view, and if so, what are these? (Eskimos, 5) Does he believe there are other ways of obtaining adequate sustenance?
How should the principle of equal consideration of interests be applied in this case? (major interests should not be sacrificed to minor interests, 5)
Is the eating of animals an efficient way of producing food? If not, why not? (animal meat only retains about 10% of nutritional value of grain the animal must eat, 5)
What does the author think about the morality of confinement lots? (strongest case against using animals for food, 5) What does he think we should do? (change our dietary habits, 5)
What are some instances in which animals may be better treated? (those permitted to graze freely, 6) Even for free range animals, what practices may cause suffering? (6) Can those living in cities make an accurate judgment on how their food was raised?
What are his arguments against much animal experimentation? What examples does he give? (forcing an animal to cross an electrified grid to measure reaction to stress, 6)
What counter-arguments does he give to the claim that animal experiments are necessary to help humans? (many experiments yield trivial results, 6-7) What examples does he give? (testing of food and drug additives to see if they kill animals)
Are universities exempt from the charge of frivolous research? (7) What are some real-life examples? (keeping monkeys in isolation causes permanent depression and fear, 7) According to what principle are these experiments unethical? (equal consideration to the interests of all beings)
What are ways of responding to the question, if experiments on a few would help many, should they be permitted? (yes, as a utilitarian; no, for a believer in absolute rights, 7) What are the dangers of a yes answer? (could justify use of humans with irreparable brain damage)
What are some other topics relating to the treatment of animals which might be examined according to the same principles? (zoos, circuses, use of furs, the pet business, 8)
How do we know that animals can feel pain? (their behavior, existence of nervous system, 8) Do these considerations apply to plants? (Singer thinks not, 9)
Is the fact that animals eat one another an excuse for eating them? (similar to Stephen Gould’s argument that nature is nonmoral) Why not? (killing for food necessary for animals, they can’t reflect on the ethics of their actions, 9)
How does Singer answer the claim that it is natural for the strong to predate on the week? (our consumption of animals isn’t part of the evolutionary process, that which is natural isn’t necessarily right, 9)
What were some of the earlier claims about the differences between humans and animals? How were these refuted? (claims that only human used tools, only humans make tools, only humans have language; counterexamples have been found for all, 10)
In Singer’s view, does the fact that a being is self-conscious entitle it to some kind of special consideration? (only if its interests in the matter are greater anyway, 10) What example does he give of an exaggerated claim on the basis of self-consciousness? (claim that a self-conscious human has a right to eat a veal calf because the latter isn’t self-conscious, 11)
Is there grounds to assume that the interests of a non-self-conscious being are less important than those of a self-conscious one? (as irrelevant as considerations of sex, race, etc., 11) If this were granted, to what dangerous conclusions might this lead? (marginal humans might also have their rights denied, 11)
What have been attempts to get around this argument? (first view is that we should favor marginal persons because rights are usually granted to others in in our species, 11-12) What is his argument against this? (would apply to treating members of our race or sex better than others, 12)
What is the second argument? (that we should treat members of our species better because we have a special relationship with, and are partial to them, 12) How does he refute this?
Why are our feelings not a guide, and what instance does he give? (a person may prefer their cat to their neighbor, but are obligated to save their neighbor in a fire? 12; could permit racism or sexism)
What is the slippery slope argument, and how does he dismiss this? (if we grant equality of interests a future totalitarian government may seek to mistreat humans, 12-13)
What is Singer’s goal in this line of reasoning? (should treat animals with the same concern as we do for humans, 13)
What does Singer think of the view that we only have obligations to beings who can reciprocate? (whatever the original basis of ethical theories, they should now be broadened with the use of reason, should pass beyond self-interest, 14; we would have no obligations to future generations, 13-14) What examples does he give of those who began a process the limits of which they could not foresee? (early mathematicians, 14) What are some other problems with the reciprocity only view? (would exclude infants, permit slavery, predating on weaker countries, we would have no obligations to future generations, etc., 13-15)
What does Singer conclude about the development of notions of morality? (has passed beyond the simple limits of reciprocity, 15)
Chapter 5
Why does Singer consider it important to decide whether a non-human creature can be a person? What definitions of personhood does he put forward? (have sense of self, can remember and anticipate)
What arguments can be given for the personhood of the animals which he describes? What animals or beings does this exclude, according to him?
What arguments does he consider about the claim that it's necessary to kill animals in order to raise others? (argument for replaceability of animals not valid--we have no obligation to create every possible form of life; uses extreme cases such as eliminating all humans so that more animals can survive)
Might there be other arguments for not killing these others? (effects on their families and co-animals; brutal conditions; effects on environment) What does Singer himself believe? (animals should not be killed except in special circumstances)