Peter Singer's Argument in The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues - Book Report/Review Example

Business Ethics Introduction The question of ethics in business is a highly complex and many varied subject that demands careful analysis. Indeed, it is a discipline that calls upon the various disciplines of philosophy, psychology, entrepreneurship, and general sales. While some people might believe that the question of determining right from wrong is a simple process and equation, upon examining the disparate writers and insights in Shaw and Barry’s Moral Issues in Business, it’s clear that there is no direct and simple path for determining ethical behavior, but rather a series of competing interpretations and arguments. In ‘The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues’ Peter Singer makes such a moral interpretation, in arguing for the importance of considering nonhumans in ethical decision making. In examining Peter Singer’s argument in ‘The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues,’ this essay considers both Singer’s greatest intellectual strengths and greatest intellectual weaknesses. Strengths If one makes a brief perusal of some of Peter Singer’s writings on ethical constructs, such as ‘Foreign Aid and the Moral Value of Freedom’, one notices that one of Singer’s predominant strengths as a writer is his ability to distill complex ideas into easily understandable prose. Indeed, in ‘The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues’ this strength is also witnessed as Singer makes great effort to clearly define the topic of his discussion and the various points of his argument. For instance, he identifies the extent of the subject being examined – the nonhumans – by stating, “it is with nonhuman animals, rather than plants, that I am chiefly concerned” (Singer, pg. 558). He also further elaborates his argument in this regard by noting that while animals are often regard as a collective entity, in his argument they will be considered along individual criteria. Singer also clearly states the central issue of his investigation and doesn’t engage in elaborate circumlocution in advancing the argument’s central concerns; he states, “The general question, then, is how the effects of our actions on the environment of nonhuman beings should figure in our deliberations about what we ought to do” (Singer, pg. 558). Singer is also clear and direct in qualifying that the nonhuman animals he is considering must have interests that distinguish them from entities such as rocks or even plants and trees that while living entities, most people will agree lack any sort of conscious interest or developed sense of pain. One experienced with reading ethical or intellectual material will note that many writers construct their arguments in an elaborate style, that while seeming to purport essential truths, is actually hiding behind the density of the prose. Conversely, as these examples attest, Singer’s greatest intellectual strength is this ability to directly state, clarify, and develop his argument so that there is no ambiguity in his essential points. This is highly important for an ethical argument, as an understanding of what is right or virtuous has to be clearly defined in order for individuals to act upon it, so that highly ambiguous or specious arguments are ultimately self-defeating. Singer’s intellectual strength in articulating his argument is also exemplified in the various similes and examples that are interspersed throughout the essay. For instance, in discussing the means by which individuals at one time made moral decisions that only benefited themselves based on grounds of perceived genetic superiority, Singer uses the example of the moral justification slave masters used to justify their enslavement of African Americans out of an ill-conceived belief they were inferior. In these regards, Singer’s articulation of this example is successful in clearly and succinctly demonstrating the connection between the mindset humans take in regards to nonhumans in the decision making process in a way that individuals can both understand and have an instant emotional connection. Singer’s strength in articulation is also witnessed in his lengthy discussion of the moral implications of the situation animals are put in to produce food at economical prices for humans. Arguably, this section is superfluous to the logical progression of his argument, yet its clear and direct appeal is effective in emotionally convincing the reader that animals’ interests must be taken into consideration if one is to make a fully informed ethical choice. Weaknesses While Peter Singer makes a powerful and highly convincing argument for why it is ethically important to consider nonhumans with interests in the decision making process, there are a number of intellectual weaknesses to his argument. One of the first weaknesses one notes is his use of the distinguishing feature of ‘interest’ as the central element for determining whether one decision should be made over another. It’s clear that Singer recognizes that is a troublesome point, as he takes considerable pains to acknowledge that while in large part determining whether the extent of an entities interest is highly complex, there are clear cut instances in which one individual can determine that the right action is being made. Singer’s states his core point in this regard, “We may recognize that the interests of one being are greater than those of another, and equal consideration will then lead us to sacrifice the being with lesser interests, if one or the other must be sacrificed” (Singer, pg. 559). As Singer indicates this is easy to determine in instances where the interests are blatantly obvious, but becomes nearly impossible with even a small bit of complexity. For example, consider the challenge of determining whether to eliminate one nonhuman over another as an element of required population control. In this regard, both nonhumans have the same interest in existence such that making a moral choice to eliminate one nonhuman over another is impossible be merely following Singer’s decision making criteria. Perhaps, as Singer argues in regards to a highly disabled human with no family, that it is possible to determine the answer to this quandary by extending the examination of interest to not simply include the desire to exist, but can be based on a number of qualifying and external circumstances. In these regards, Singer’s argument can be argued to break down. When considering the extent of interests that can be attributed to one entity or to interests that objective entities may have in this entity, arguments can be extended in perpetuity. While a highly disabled individual without a family may be less easily definable interests than a specific nonhuman entity, this does not necessarily mean that the extent of interests in the nonhuman entity outweighs that of the highly disabled human entity. Clearly, making any decision of significant moral importance based on Singer’s criteria would demand extensive information that in its most extreme considerations is impossible to obtain. In these regards, while Singer makes an effort to qualify his discussion of ‘interest’ he ultimately uses it as a sort of mystical term that encompasses all aspects of his argument. In one sense, interests are the subjective cares and concerns of the nonhuman being, in another sense they are constitute external cares for the nonhuman being. While on a superficial level such distinctions withstand criticism, but on a close inspection it’s clear that Singer’s distinguishing factor of interests is an overly simplistic categorization of a much more complex and difficult to determine question. While perhaps not as central as the weakness of Singer’s use of ‘interest’ as his defining decision making criteria, there are a number of weaknesses that are also associated with this argumentative choice. For instance, consider the question of whether the nonhuman entity is intent on carrying out destructive acts, or even if it has committed these acts in the past. In these instances, would it not be morally justifiable to decide on a course of action that is more disadvantageous to this being than to a being with less developed interests that does not function in ways that are deleterious to the advancement of society. While Singer might argue that such an instance is an outlier and is not indicative of his hypothetical process, when one considers the question in terms of evolutionary theory it becomes clear that to some extent all beings may be argued to function within a social order that is determined by such tenants. The question then becomes is the privileging of human interests over nonhuman interests an element that is innate to the very fabric of evolution and earthly existence, and not even a question of ethical decision making. While there is no clear cut answer, ultimately it’s clear that Singer’s greatest intellectual weakness are that his ethical distinctions based on the varying levels of the being’s interest falls short of comprehensively addressing the question in all its complexity. Conclusion In conclusion, it’s clear that there are both compelling intellectual strengths and weaknesses in Peter Singer’s ‘The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues.’ His greatest intellectual strength, which is his ability to clearly and convincingly articulate his argument, is successful in moving the reader to give great consideration to his argument. Conversely, his greatest intellectual weakness, namely that of the logical inconsistency and lack of complexity of his argument, cast his points on ethical decision making in a questionable light. Ultimately, the reader must decide where they stand on the argument and if Singer’s failure to address the complexity of ethical decision making is outweighed by the power of his articulation and emotional appeal. References Shaw, W. & Barry, V. (2009). Moral Issues In Business. New York: Wadworth Publishing. Read More