The Chronicle: Colloquy: Responses

I remember reading Peter Singer's ethics textbook in a sophomore level ethics course. At the time, very few persons in the course, myself included, could resist the lure of utilitarianism. Nevertheless, very few persons would embrace the extreme positions advocated by Mr. Singer. The logic of moral interests seems to have a very weak hold when persons are asked to abandon their own utility preferences for cognitively less developed life forms. Our moral world is seldom presented to us as a utility calculation. In fact it sometimes seems downright immoral to calculate the costs and benefits of an ethical deed. We are expected to do what is right despite personal costs. This is how most people live ethically.

Ethics is the study of values and worth. Philosophers like Mr. Singer are given the leisure to ponder these questions. They may often come up with what appears to be ludicrous conclusions. Their conclusions deserve a respectful hearing. If their conclusions are truly outlandish, they will be rejected, as individuals act upon what they value. Utilitarianism cannot be scripturally sound because it emerges from the preferences of life forms with interests and not in the far reaches of the mystical beyond. These interests lead to conflict and unless we accept some standard of arbitration, the struggle itself ultimately determines value. Power, as it is construed in the broadest sense, is the arbitrator of what is ethical from a utilitarian perspective. Whether we can live with this reality or not determines our attitude toward utilitarianism. In the end, it is possible that God is a utilitarian though this by no means assures us of the soundness of Mr. Singer's position. It does force us to think seriously about the issues with which Mr. Singer presents us.

: -- Todd Myers, University of Phoenix (posted 3/10, 10:53 a.m., E.S.T.)

previous response

next response

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.