AgoraAn open square of thought

Peter Singer

b. 1946

A first way ina deliberate simplification – the portrait says more

Equal suffering counts equally, whether a human or an animal feels it – and if we can prevent great harm at little cost, we must.

Placement

Analytic Philosophy · Oceania · Ethics

Utilitarian practical ethics: equal interests deserve equal consideration, whatever the species – and the affluent should do far more against global poverty.

Key ideas

  • Speciesism
  • Effective altruism
  • Equal consideration of interests

Teachers: R. M. Hare

Open in the star map

Influence

Influenced by 4

  • Jeremy Bentham

    influenced by

    Singer made Bentham’s question ‘Can they suffer?’ and the maxim, ascribed to Bentham, that each counts for one the basis of equal consideration for animals (Animal Liberation, 1975). P. Singer, Animal Liberation (1975); J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789); SEP “Jeremy Bentham”; SEP “The Moral Status of Animals”

    Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO

    Jeremy Bentham › 1748–1832

  • John Stuart Mill

    influenced by

    Singer took up the classical utilitarianism of Bentham, Mill and Sidgwick, judging actions by their consequences for the interests of all affected (Practical Ethics, 1979). P. Singer, Practical Ethics (1979); J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1861/63); SEP “John Stuart Mill”

    Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO

    John Stuart Mill › 1806–1873

  • Henry Sidgwick

    influenced by

    With de Lazari-Radek, Singer defended Sidgwick’s utilitarianism, his ‘point of view of the universe’ and intuitionist method, and argued the dualism of practical reason can be resolved (2014). K. de Lazari-Radek and P. Singer, The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics (2014); SEP “Henry Sidgwick”

    Evidence: also in InPhO · InPhO

    Henry Sidgwick › 1838–1900

  • R. M. Hare studied with

    studied with

    Singer’s Oxford BPhil thesis on civil disobedience (1971) was supervised by Hare and appeared as Democracy and Disobedience (1973); Singer’s later preference utilitarianism draws on Hare’s universal prescriptivism. P. Singer, “An Intellectual Autobiography”, in J. A. Schaler (ed.), Peter Singer Under Fire (2009); P. Singer, Democracy and Disobedience (1973)

    Evidence: AI draft

    R. M. Hare › 1919–2002

Influenced 1

  • William MacAskill

    influenced ✓

    MacAskill took up Singer’s argument that the affluent should give much to prevent suffering (‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’, 1972), adding evidence about effectiveness (Doing Good Better, 2015). W. MacAskill, Doing Good Better (2015); P. Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 (1972)

    Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata

    William MacAskill › b. 1987

Criticism

Criticized by 3

  • Tom Regan

    criticised by

    Regan objected that Singer’s utilitarianism cannot secure animal rights: aggregating interests could justify harming individuals, treated as mere receptacles of value (The Case for Animal Rights, 1983). T. Regan, “Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 (1980); The Case for Animal Rights (1983); P. Singer, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 (1980)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Tom Regan › 1938–2017

  • Martha Nussbaum

    criticised by

    Nussbaum objected that Singer’s utilitarian approach to animals aggregates pleasures and pains and neglects the many-sided flourishing of each kind of creature (Frontiers of Justice, 2006, ch. 6). M. C. Nussbaum, Frontiers of Justice (2006), ch. 6; Justice for Animals (2023)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Martha Nussbaum › b. 1947

  • Alice Crary

    criticised by

    Crary objected that Singer ranks beings by individual capacities, a ‘moral individualism’ that does justice neither to animals nor to people with severe cognitive disabilities (Inside Ethics, 2016). A. Crary, Inside Ethics: On the Demands of Moral Thought (2016)

    Evidence: AI draft

    Alice Crary › b. 1967

Works

Position

Singer applies a utilitarian principle with unusual consistency: the equal interests of all beings capable of suffering deserve equal consideration. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” he argued that if we would wade into a pond to save a drowning child at the cost of muddy clothes, we are equally obliged to help distant people dying of poverty. In Animal Liberation he called the disregard of animal suffering “speciesism,” analogous to racism, and criticised factory farming and animal experiments. Practical Ethics applies these principles to abortion, euthanasia and disability, where his conclusions have provoked fierce protests, especially in Germany. His work inspired the animal rights movement and the effective altruism movement.

Life & context

Singer was born in Melbourne in 1946 to Jewish parents who had fled Vienna; three of his grandparents were murdered in the Holocaust. He studied in Melbourne and at Oxford, where R. M. Hare taught him. After teaching at Monash University he became professor of bioethics at Princeton in 1999. He is among the most widely read and most controversial living philosophers.

Further main works

  • The Expanding Circle (1981)
  • The Life You Can Save (2009)

Appears in

Sources: Wikipedia · Wikidata

As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made

Open in the star map