Preference utilitarianism

May 1, 2023 philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk

Peter Singer’s ChallengePractical Ethics (1993)


Questions asked of any moral theory• Derivation: How is the value or norm

(idea of goodness) derived?• Application: How easy is the norm to

apply to real world situations?• Realism: How realistic is the theory in

its view of human nature?• Motivation: How does this theory

answer the question: why should I be moral?

Acronym D.A.R.M learn and apply to any theory


Aims of this lesson• To understand Singer’s preference

utilitarianism.• To apply it to animal rights and

euthanasia/infanticide.• To understand the radical

implications of his theory.• To evaluate it according to its

Realism and Motivation of moral agents.


Three versions of utilitarianismUtilitarianism

Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism Preference utilitarianism

• Bentham• Goodness =

actions that maximise pleasure minus pain

• Mill• Goodness =

happiness of greatest number

• Singer• Goodness =

maximising preferences and interests of all


Dilemmas• If curing cancer requires research that kills ten embryos,

should we do the research? What if it involves killing ten babies?

• In November 2009 the NHS announced it could not afford to give expensive life-enhancing drugs to liver cancer patients. Are they right?

• If redistributing European excess food production to the 25m starving in Africa in the drought of 2009 will save their lives, should we do it?


Radicalism “Singer’s principle is, “If it is in our power to

prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”

A moment’s reflection on the implications of

this principle should convince you of its radicalness. If we were to follow it, we would be left just slightly better off than the worst off people in the world (who would be much better off). People would have to turn in their second cars and second homes and share the ones they already have”.

Louis Pojman (2007:251)


Preference Utilitarianism• Happiness is maximised by allowing people to

satisfy as many of their first preferences as possible.

• “An action contrary to the preference of any being is, unless outweighed by contrary preferences, wrong. Killing a person who prefers to continue living is therefore wrong, other things being equal”.

Practical Ethics

• Utility, not rights, is the deciding principle.

• But what of the rights of people eg infants or the handicapped, who cannot state preferences?


How does this work?• Take an impartial view that

of the impartial spectator.

• “Our own preferences cannot take priority over the preferences of others”.

• So the preferences and interests of all those involved must be considered.

• There’s strict equality of all in the weighing of interests.

Two tiers of moral relevance• Higher tier – humans who have

desires and goals for the future – a sense of biography. Also higher order primates eg chimps qualify.

• Lower tier – humans who have no sense of self through time eg severely handicapped. Also lower order animals such as chickens.


Two standards of judgement• For tier 1: Singer applies

preference utilitarianism – good = satisfying most first preferences.

• For tier 2: Singer applies hedonistic act utilitarianism. So the issue is – does the animal suffer...or could the diasabled person be replaced by a happier person?



Animal Liberation• He approves of Bentham’s dictum: “the question

is not, can they reason? Nor “can they talk”? But, “can they suffer”?

• Mill talks of extending “the standard of morality..so far as the nature of things permits, to the whole of sentient creation.” Utilitarianism

• Singer accords animals rights as sentient (feeling) beings; they have valid interests.

• So eating meat, consuming battery-farmed eggs, cosmetic testing on animals, or wearing fur are wrong.

• It is preferences or interests, that we ought to value.


Rachels comments: “ The utilitarian argument is

simple enough. The system of meat production causes great suffering to the animals. Because we do not need to eat them – vegetarian meals are also tasty and nourishing – the good that is done does not, on balance, outweigh the evil. Therefore it is wrong. Singer concludes that we should become vegetarians”.

James Rachels

(2006:101)


Should doctors be permitted to kill humans?• Singer points out that doctors often withhold

treatment from the terminally ill. Surely this is crueller than euthanasia?

• Even new-born infants have little ethical significance.

“If the foetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of the newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to a non-human animal…the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants”.

Practical Ethics• Singer suggests a new commandment:

“Recognize that the worth of human life varies”.


Problems• “The notion of what makes a better person is

secondary to the right thing to do” Peter Singer.

• Virtue Ethicists like MacIntyre argue that humans who kill in one situation (infanticide) are more likely to kill in another.

• Religious Philosophers like Plantinga argue that it’s dangerous to violate the sanctity of life.

• Susan Wolf suggests such an ethically perfect world would be dreary, without wit, extravagance, cathedrals, or works of art.


Too high a standard?• David Norton argues that Singer misses the point in setting

the standard so high: that morality is learnt step by step. Mill’s utilitarianism is more minimalist.

• So only the moral elite will be capable of this sort of sacrifice implied by maximising preferences.

• We don’t have the same moral duties: to a moral beginner something may seem a huge sacrifice compared with a moral saint.

• The general duty we do have is to develop our moral capacities to a point where we can experience greater happiness or take greater responsibility.

• So it is better to espouse a theory of moral progress than to apply Singer’s principle in a consistent way.


Singer ignores reality of kinship duties “Kinship or closeness is a

very important element in thinking about every aspect of our lives. To deny the reality of the influence this factor has on our decision-making in favour of some abstraction like absolute equality may be considered saintly, but is probably not possible for most mortals faced with moral decisions”.

Lori Gruen in Singer ed (1993:250)


A wrong view of human nature?• “Deep down we don’t want to live with

Singer because we can’t live with ourselves this way. Singer can’t understand why Hindu vegetarians, Catholic paupers and Jewish scribes – some of the best people there are – are rarely built on utilitarian principles. Animal lovers, Singer’s biggest fans, usually love animals, not utility. And that’s true of humans too.”

Mark Oppenheimer


Is Singer’s end goal a kind of transcendent ideal, almost religious ?• Singer believes religion is an illusion. But he

also writes:

“If we regard time as a fourth dimension, then we can think of the universe, throughout all the times at which it contains sentient life, as a four-dimension entity. We can then make that world a better place by causing there to be less pointless suffering in one particular place, at one particular time, than there would otherwise have been.”

Peter Singer How are we to

live?


Evaluate Preference Utilitarianism

• Write down three strengths of Singer’s theory.

• Write down three weaknesses.

• Compare Singer’s theory with Mill’s rule utilitarianism. What are the similarities and differences?

• Discuss: Singer allows for the interests of animals (who can’t express preferences) but not infants. Isn’t this inconsistent?


Singer’s invitation to speak in Germany is withdrawn in 1991 because of this view. Was this action justified?

“Parents of severely disabled newborn infants should be able to decide, together with their physician, whether their infant should live or die. If the parents and their medical adviser are in agreement that the infant’s life will be so miserable or so devoid of minimal satisfactions that it would be inhumane to prolong life, then they should be allowed to ensure that death comes about speedily and without much suffering”.

Practical Ethics p342


Wrap up Peter Singer• On the piece of paper/ post it note, write one

thing you have learned today…

• Could be a concept you are now familiar with.

• Or, a new key term in your vocabulary.

• A theory that you are more confident in understanding.

• Developed an academic/exam skill.

• If nothing, be honest. But say why you feel nothing.

Preference utilitarianism

Education

Transcript of Preference utilitarianism