Skip to main content

Peter Singer and the ethics of food

In the 1970s Peter Singer challenged thinking about animals in his seminal book ‘Animal Liberation’. It changed the debate about the use of animals from an emotional issue to one of practical and reasoned ethics. Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher and the use of animals had usually been justified on utilitarian grounds. But Peter Singer threw out a challenge. He pointed out that for a utilitarian justification an equal consideration of interest had to be given to all parties involved in the utilitarian balance. It was clearly not in the interest of animals to be harmed. In the first chapter of his book he argued that ‘All animals are equal’. His second challenge was to ask the question on what grounds we could make a moral distinction between species in the ethical balance.

In a discussion with Sung Hee Kim for Voices from Oxford, Peter Singer reveals what he calls the ‘decisive formative experience of my life’ at a lunch with a fellow student at Balliol College, an experience that led him to completely alter his views on the use of animals for food.

Faced with the choice of a plate of spaghetti with some ‘brown sauce on top’ or a salad, his friend asked if the sauce contained meat. It did, so he chose the salad. Peter Singer chose the spaghetti with the meat sauce.

Intrigued, he asked why his friend had avoided the meat. He expected an answer about his health or some religious reason, but his friend told him he didn’t think it was right to treat animals in the way they were when turned into food. This experience set Peter Singer to begin thinking about the moral status of animals and it led to the writing of his book ‘Animal Liberation’.

“I don’t think we can justify participating in a practice that is exploiting animals in the way it does.” Peter Singer became a vegan. But for Peter Singer it is not simply an emotional issue about the love of animals. It is an issue of practical ethics and morality. It was, he says, the “first real issue in applied ethics that I took up, not merely as an academic question, but that I wanted to change the world about.”

“We are talking about literally billions of animals being treated in ways that are not really defensible from an ethical point of view.”

It was at that time, in the 1970s, he reminds us, “a neglected issue”. Other issues dominated ethical discourse such as the war in Vietnam, Civil Rights and Civil Disobedience. The use of animals for food wasn’t an issue that was widely discussed. Peter Singer’s book helped to change that.

In looking to the future Peter Singer considers the issues of climate change need urgent attention. But, he reminds us, it “requires cooperation” between nations. If future generations could vote for drastically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, then Peter Singer has no doubt they would do so. But they can’t, so it is this generation that must do it, and we have to make some sacrifices to do it. 

watch the video of Peter Singer's interview

Ray Noble is News Editor for Voices from Oxford

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Palm Oil production killing the planet

Bad trade and bad products are killing our planet. We have said this before on The Thin End. There is no better example than that of palm oil. It is used ubiquitously in so many products, and its production is a major factor destroying rainforests and threatening precious species.

Demand for palm oil is 'skyrocketing worldwide'. It is used in packaging and in so much of our snack foods, cookies, crackers, chocolate products, instant noodles, cereals, and doughnuts, and the list goes on.
Bad for the planet So, why is this so bad for the planet?

The oil is extracted from the fruit of the oil palms native to Africa. It is now grown primarily in Indonesia and Malaysia, but is also expanding across Central and West Africa and Latin America.

Palm oil production is now one of the world's leading causes of rainforest destruction, and this is impacting adversely some of the world's most culturally and biologically diverse ecosystems. Irreplaceable wildlife species like t…

Time to ban organophosphate pesticides?

How would you react if your neighbour told you he was going to spray his garden with a neurotoxin used in WW2? "Oh don't worry!" he assures you, "it's only a low dose!"
"A neurotoxin?" you ask incredulously "Are you crazy?"
"It's very effective!" he asserts.
"How does it work?" you ask.
"It stops the pests' brains working" he asserts with a smile.  "Everyone uses it."
"But..."

Campaigners in the USA hope that with Scott Pruitt’s resignation, and with a new administrator Andrew Wheeler at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this presents another chance to apply pressure and achieve a national ban in the United States on the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos once and for all.



Organophosphate insecticides, such as diazinon, chlorpyrifos, disulfoton, azinphos-methyl, and fonofos, have been used widely in agriculture and in household applications as pesticides si…

Hummingbird exposure to pesticides

Many have responded to the campaigns to stop the use of pesticides killing bees.  Bees are not the only animals affected.

Hummingbirds are noted as a species of conservation concern by Partners in Flight, and their populations are estimated to have declined by 60% between 1970 and 2014.



New research reveals that hummingbirds and bumble bees are being exposed to neonicotinoid and other pesticides through routes that are widespread and complex. The findings are published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry.

To measure exposure to pesticides in these avian pollinators, investigators made novel use of cloacal fluid and fecal pellets from hummingbirds living near blueberry fields in British Columbia. They also collected bumble bees native to Canada, and their pollen, and blueberry leaves and flowers from within conventionally sprayed and organic blueberry farms.

The researchers detected pesticides and related compounds in cloacal fluid and fecal pellets of hummingbirds revealing…