You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Peter Singer, The New York Times trumpets, “wants to shatter your moral complacency.” Widely regarded as one of the most provocative ethicists of our time, the Princeton philosopher challenges many commonly accepted beliefs about the value of life, the ethics of everyday actions and wealth distribution. His arguments target what he perceives as “moral complacency”—a comfort with established ethical norms that, in his view, fails to address pressing moral issues.
Here are some of his most notorious examples.
The Drowning Child Analogy and Effective Altruism: Singer uses the thought experiment of a drowning child to challenge people’s inaction in the face of preventable suffering. He asks: If you saw a child drowning in a pond and could save them with no risk to yourself, would you do it? Most people say yes. He argues that failing to donate to effective charities that prevent death or suffering is morally comparable to walking past a drowning child.
Through this analogy, Singer promotes effective altruism—a movement he helped inspire, advocating that people should not only give to charity but give effectively, using resources to do the most good possible. He believes that those in wealthy nations have a moral obligation to aid those in extreme poverty, framing this as a universal ethical imperative rather than an optional act of charity.
Animal Liberation and Speciesism: In Animal Liberation, Singer contends that animals deserve moral consideration comparable to that of humans, introducing “speciesism” to describe the bias that prioritizes human interests over those of other species. For Singer, the capacity to suffer—not species membership—grants a being moral standing.
Singer’s argument challenges the widespread acceptance of factory farming and animal experimentation by arguing that suffering, whether experienced by a human or a nonhuman animal, is inherently wrong. He contends that dietary and lifestyle choices involving animals are morally indefensible under objective ethical scrutiny.
Euthanasia and the Value of Life: Singer questions the intuition that all human lives are of equal value and should be preserved at all costs. He argues that in cases of severely compromised quality of life, such as persistent vegetative states or extreme disability, euthanasia or assisted suicide may be morally justifiable if it aligns with the person’s wishes or best interests.
This view is highly controversial, as it challenges traditional beliefs in the sanctity of life. In cases involving infants with severe disabilities, Singer even suggests that parents might have a moral choice regarding whether to allow such a child to live.
Moral Obligations and Global Inequality: Singer contends that moral obligations extend beyond personal and national borders. In Famine, Affluence and Morality, he argues that those with disposable income have a duty to alleviate global suffering from preventable causes like hunger and disease. He insists that failing to do so, when one has the means, is morally equivalent to ignoring someone’s suffering. This view challenges the common intuition that moral obligations are weaker toward distant strangers than toward family or compatriots.
Rational Ethics Over Intuition: A consistent theme in Singer’s work is his opposition to moral intuitions. He believes that reason, rather than gut feelings, should be the foundation of ethical decision-making. Singer argues that our intuitions are often biased by evolutionary pressures, social conditioning and self-interest, making them unreliable guides.
Instead, he promotes a utilitarian framework focused on maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. Although his conclusions often seem counterintuitive, Singer argues they are ethically sound when viewed through a rational lens focused on minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness.
Through these challenges to our everyday choices and deeply held beliefs, Singer urges people to re-evaluate their sense of moral duty and responsibility. By pushing readers to confront the discomfort of moral inconsistencies, he seeks to inspire more rational and impactful approaches to ethics—arguably reshaping the landscape of modern moral philosophy.
Singer’s approach to ethics, grounded in utilitarianism, challenges readers to re-evaluate moral standards not by tradition, intuition or abstract rights but by considering the outcomes of actions and their ability to maximize well-being for the greatest number. This often leads Singer to counterintuitive yet, he argues, more consistent and humane conclusions.
Singer’s framework prioritizes consequences and well-being over traditional moral rules, virtues or intuitions. He advocates an objective, universal pursuit of minimizing suffering, applying moral concern to all sentient beings, regardless of their capacity for rationality, autonomy or reciprocity.
Singer critiques several major moral philosophies, starting with deontological ethics, particularly Kant’s framework.
While deontologists hold that morality is about following strict rules or duties regardless of outcome, Singer argues that such rigidity can be harmful. He asserts that the consequences of an action should be the measure of its morality, challenging Kant’s categorical imperative—which insists on acting only in ways one would wish to become universal law—as often overlooking situational nuances and harm. For Singer, any rule that doesn’t serve the greater good should be re-evaluated, with minimizing suffering and promoting happiness as the ultimate ethical goals.
Singer’s critique of virtue ethics questions that approach’s focus on character development and personal flourishing rather than tangible outcomes. While virtue ethics, rooted in Aristotle, emphasizes cultivating moral character and achieving personal eudaimonia (flourishing), Singer argues that the impact of actions is more important than inward virtue. For him, morality should be outward-looking, aiming to reduce suffering on a broad scale rather than simply developing the individual’s character.
Singer also challenges ethical intuitionism, which suggests that moral truths are accessible through human intuition. Ethical intuitionists like W. D. Ross argue that people have natural instincts that help them distinguish right from wrong. Singer, however, views intuitions as culturally conditioned and evolutionarily biased, often leading to inconsistent or biased judgments. He argues that ethics should be grounded in rational assessments, particularly when intuitions perpetuate unnecessary suffering—such as “speciesism,” the prioritization of human interests over animals’.
Singer further opposes moral relativism, which treats ethical standards as subjective and culturally specific. He contends that objective moral standards, particularly around minimizing suffering and promoting well-being, should apply universally. Practices that cause harm, such as animal cruelty or gender discrimination, cannot be justified on cultural grounds if they result in suffering. For Singer, fundamental moral obligations, like preventing harm, transcend cultural boundaries.
In critiquing social contract theory, Singer points out that its focus on mutual agreements between rational agents fails to account for moral duties to those unable to reciprocate, such as animals, infants or people with disabilities. While social contract theory, as seen in Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, emphasizes rational agreements for mutual benefit, Singer insists that moral consideration should extend to all beings capable of suffering, regardless of their ability to form contracts.
Singer’s challenge to rights-based theories, which assert that individuals inherently possess certain rights like life, liberty and property, further illustrates his focus on outcomes over abstract rights. He sees rights as derivative rather than foundational, believing that ethical decisions should prioritize interests, such as the ability to avoid suffering, over strict rights. For instance, he argues that euthanasia may be morally justified if it ends suffering, challenging the absolute “right to life” upheld by some rights-based theories.
Singer’s critiques also extend to religious moral frameworks that base morality on divine commands or sacred doctrines. As a proponent of secular ethics, Singer argues that morality should be grounded in reason and evidence, not religious teachings. He challenges doctrines that prioritize obedience to faith over minimizing suffering, specifically critiquing the sanctity-of-life principle, which regards life as inherently sacred. Singer instead focuses on the quality of life and the capacity to suffer, supporting positions like euthanasia and, under certain conditions, even infanticide if they reduce suffering.
By emphasizing outcomes and well-being over rules, virtues, intuitions, cultural norms, social contracts, rights and religious doctrines, Singer advocates a rational, empirical approach that aims to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for all sentient beings. Through this lens, he proposes a universal yet adaptable moral framework, designed to address the unique needs and impacts on individuals while prioritizing the well-being of the broader moral community.
As a historian, I study the evolution of ethical strictures and moral sensibilities as products of historical processes, rather than as debates confined to schools of moral philosophy or theology.
A historical approach to ethics grounds moral principles and sensibilities in evolving human experiences shaped by specific social, cultural and intellectual contexts. Rather than treating ethics as a collection of fixed doctrines or abstract debates, a historian views moral frameworks as dynamic constructs that reflect the changing values, challenges and aspirations of societies over time.
This perspective reveals that moral sensibilities—such as ideas about justice, responsibility, compassion and rights—are not universal constants but products of historical struggle, adaptation and reconfiguration.
Consider Singer’s utilitarianism, which prioritizes measurable well-being and the reduction of suffering. Viewed historically, this emphasis reflects modern global concerns, rooted in the 20th century’s unprecedented interconnectivity and scientific advances that promoted a secular, outcomes-oriented mindset. Singer’s approach aligns with a broader cultural shift toward moral calculations that consider the welfare of individuals worldwide, transcending traditional religious or community-based boundaries. This shift mirrors a long-term trend toward expanding moral concern from local community ethics to global humanitarianism.
A historical lens allows us to see Singer’s critiques of Kantian deontology, virtue ethics and religious frameworks as part of a broader secularization process that has redefined moral philosophy since the Enlightenment. Each framework embodies values and assumptions tied to the contexts in which they emerged. Kantian ethics, with its focus on autonomy and universal principles, arose in an era that elevated individual rationality while challenging previously dominant religious or feudal authorities. Similarly, virtue ethics, rooted in Aristotelian Greece, reflects a society centered on civic virtue and personal character within a close-knit polis, where communal flourishing was key.
From this perspective, each ethical framework is a response to its historical moment—a cultural adaptation to evolving understandings of human nature, society and responsibility. “Moral progress” thus appears not as a linear path to universal moral truth but as a continual reshaping of ethical principles in response to changing conditions. Forces such as shifts in power, scientific advances and growing global interdependence continuously challenge, refine or replace existing ethical models.
This approach complicates the idea of “timeless” moral principles. Rather than seeking universal laws that transcend context, a historical perspective encourages us to explore the origins and transformations of moral ideas and how these have been shaped by material realities, intellectual debates and human struggles. It suggests that our enduring ethical frameworks are not relics of an eternal moral order but adaptive responses to the lived realities of different eras.
This historical approach does not dismiss any ethical framework but underscores the importance of understanding these systems as products of specific contexts. It invites us to see these frameworks, including Singer’s, as responses to historical forces, reminding us that future moral systems will similarly emerge from the unique challenges and aspirations of coming generations.
Let me illustrate my argument with a historical example. The late 18th and early 19th centuries saw a profound shift in public attitudes toward pain and suffering, reflected in the rise of antislavery movements, animal welfare campaigns and child protection efforts. This transformation was driven by intertwined intellectual, cultural, economic, social and religious changes that redefined empathy and moral responsibility.
Enlightenment thinkers played a pivotal role, especially with their emphasis on empathy. Adam Smith, for instance, argued in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) that empathy was foundational to moral behavior. His concept of the “impartial spectator” urged people to consider others’ suffering as if it were their own, promoting ethical awareness and expanding moral responsibility. Enlightenment ideals broadened the “moral circle,” with universal human rights encouraging people to view all human beings as deserving of compassion. This framework heightened opposition to practices like slavery, whose cruelties were increasingly exposed through art, literature and activism.
The sentimental literature of the period further fueled emotional awareness. Authors like Samuel Richardson and Laurence Sterne encouraged readers to engage with characters’ inner lives, fostering empathy for marginalized groups, including enslaved people, animals and children. This emotional connection translated into greater public support for compassionate causes.
In Britain and the United States, the rise of evangelicalism emphasized compassion and moral duty, with leaders like John Wesley, William Wilberforce and Granville Sharp promoting the alleviation of suffering as a Christian obligation. Evangelicals framed abolitionist and animal welfare causes as moral imperatives, arguing that all humans were equal in the eyes of God and helped mobilize public opinion against cruelty and exploitation.
A shift in views on children and family life also marked this period. Enlightenment and Romantic thinkers began to see childhood as a unique, innocent phase requiring care and protection, leading to criticism of child labor, corporal punishment and neglect. This perspective laid the groundwork for child welfare reforms, as society moved away from viewing children as miniature adults to seeing them as vulnerable beings in need of nurturing.
Print culture significantly shaped public awareness, as advances in printing and literacy allowed reformist literature, pamphlets and illustrations to reach a wide audience. Figures like Thomas Clarkson used graphic imagery, such as the image of the slave ship Brookes, to convey the horrors of slavery, galvanizing support for abolition. Early animal welfare advocates similarly used print media to rally public support for humane treatment.
During this time, scientific and philosophical interest in sensation and suffering deepened society’s understanding of empathy. Enlightenment thinkers and early physiologists explored the nature of sensation and consciousness, enriching perspectives on physical and emotional experiences in humans and animals. Jeremy Bentham argued that the capacity to suffer, not just the capacity to reason, should be the basis for moral consideration—a stance that influenced later arguments for animal rights. His utilitarianism advocated reducing suffering and condemning practices like slavery and animal cruelty that inflicted unnecessary harm.
Early feminist thought also expanded compassionate sentiment. Writers like Mary Wollstonecraft argued that women’s empathetic capacities were invaluable, prompting many women to take leading roles in abolitionist and social reform movements. By drawing on their caregiving roles, feminist activists advocated for a broader sense of social compassion, intersecting with abolitionist and humanitarian causes and fostering empathy for marginalized groups, including children, the enslaved and animals.
This shift in moral sensibilities toward suffering was fueled by overlapping forces: Enlightenment philosophy, sentimental literature, evangelical revivalism, evolving views on childhood, expanding print culture, scientific inquiry and early feminist activism. Together, these developments established a lasting legacy of empathy that shaped modern humanitarian movements, laying ethical foundations for ongoing efforts to alleviate suffering across boundaries of race, species and age.
A historical approach to ethics differs fundamentally from traditional moral philosophy by focusing on the evolution of moral ideas, values and behaviors within specific cultural, social and historical contexts. Rather than prescribing ethical principles or addressing timeless questions of right and wrong, it seeks to understand how moral sensibilities change over time. Drawing on anthropology, sociology and cultural history, it examines why certain moral beliefs or practices gain prominence in particular periods and how they are challenged or transformed.
A key distinction of this approach is its emphasis on context over universality. The historical approach views moral values as context-dependent, emerging and evolving in response to specific social, economic and political conditions. For example, movements like the abolition of slavery or the development of human rights are treated as products of their historical circumstances. By contrast, philosophical schools like deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics typically aim to establish universally applicable principles to guide moral reasoning across time and place, assuming constants like the maximization of happiness or respect for autonomy.
A historical lens also focuses on social and cultural influences over pure rational deliberation. Historians analyze how institutions, class structures, religious beliefs and cultural narratives shape moral values, rather than viewing these values solely as products of rational thought. For example, shifts in views on gender roles can be studied in relation to economic transformations brought about by industrialization. In contrast, many moral philosophers concentrate on the rational justification of ethical principles, aiming to develop universal moral standards based on reason.
A historical approach is also concerned with change and continuity in moral beliefs rather than with fixed principles. Historians examine how ethical ideas—such as humanitarianism or environmental ethics—emerge and evolve and whether they persist or are replaced across generations. By contrast, traditional philosophical schools often emphasize the stability of ethical principles, suggesting that values like justice or freedom are essential and enduring, even if applied differently over time.
In exploring the historical development of morality, historians emphasize the role of power, politics and institutions, examining how political ideologies and power dynamics shape moral discourse. They might study, for instance, how colonialism was justified through moral narratives that reinforced imperial power or how the rise of democracy reshaped perspectives on individual rights. Although some philosophical branches, such as critical theory, address power in relation to moral beliefs, much of traditional philosophy focuses more on abstract reasoning about ethics, independently of political or institutional influences.
This historical approach also attends to shifts in moral sensibilities and emotional responses, like the 18th-century rise in sensitivity to suffering, which contributed to movements against slavery and animal cruelty. Historians explore how literature, art and public sentiment influence moral values, showing how emotional and aesthetic responses drive moral change. By contrast, traditional moral philosophy often privileges rational argumentation over emotional responses, though some branches like care ethics and sentimentalism do consider emotion central to ethical reasoning.
A historical perspective on morality is also more likely to engage with cultural relativism, examining how moral beliefs vary widely across cultures and historical periods. Historians seek to understand ethical systems within their specific cultural contexts, often avoiding universal judgments. This contrasts with philosophical approaches that seek universal standards—such as moral realism or deontology, which establish principles applicable across cultures—or moral relativism, which accepts variability while still offering comparative analysis of moral beliefs.
In exploring the development of moral values, a historian might investigate topics like the moral economy, examining how shifts from feudalism to capitalism reshaped values around wealth and fairness. They might trace the evolution of human rights, particularly in relation to political changes like the Enlightenment and decolonization or investigate the impact of secularization on moral norms once rooted in religious doctrines. Changing views on justice, punishment and responses to suffering would also be central, showing how increased sensitivity to pain influenced movements like abolitionism and animal rights.
Critics, especially from philosophical standpoints, argue that a historical approach can lack normative guidance, explaining changes in moral values without prescribing what should be considered right or wrong. This critique sees the historical approach as overly descriptive. Another concern is that a historical approach may lead to moral relativism, making it difficult to critique harmful practices that vary by culture. Some argue that if moral standards are viewed purely as historical constructions, this could undermine the concept of moral progress, leaving open the question of whether society has genuinely improved morally over time.
Despite these criticisms, the historical approach to ethics offers a valuable framework for understanding morality as a dynamic, evolving part of human society rather than as a set of fixed, isolated principles. This perspective reveals ethical principles not as timeless abstractions but as complex constructs shaped by lived experience and a range of social forces. By examining how moral beliefs adapt over time, historians illuminate the ways in which morality is contested, reshaped and reconstructed, thus complementing philosophical approaches by grounding ethical theories in the practical and social realities that give them meaning.
The phrase “history teaches philosophy by examples” is often attributed to Thucydides, who, while not using those exact words, exemplified this idea in his History of the Peloponnesian War. Through historical events, Thucydides illustrates complex philosophical ideas about power, justice, human nature and ethics in politics. Later thinkers, like Cicero, echoed this concept, with Cicero famously saying, “Historia magistra vitae”—“history is the teacher of life”—capturing how history imparts invaluable philosophical and ethical lessons.
Rather than relying solely on abstract theories, history demonstrates how philosophical ideas are tested in real-world situations, showing their practical consequences, challenges and nuances. Historical events and decisions illustrate principles and ethical dilemmas in action, revealing philosophy’s human dimension.
When we approach ethics through a historical lens, we see how these ideas have evolved through struggle, adaptation and negotiation within specific social, cultural and political contexts. This perspective shows that morality is not a set of fixed rules or universal absolutes but a dynamic, historically situated process. Studying the history of ethical principles allows us to understand them not merely as intellectual constructs but as lived realities shaped by human experience.
Viewing ethics historically goes beyond grounding moral theories; it reveals how principles arise, evolve and are contested by real people navigating complex circumstances. Through this lens, ethical truths are not just abstract ideals but responses to pressing human needs, shaped by experience and circumstance. History shows ethics as an evolving narrative, connecting us across generations in the shared pursuit of justice, compassion and understanding. Thus, history doesn’t merely teach philosophy; it enriches it, reminding us that true morality is woven from the fabric of human life.
