Editing Peter Singer (section)

== Applied ethics ==
{{Original research|section|date=March 2024}}
{{Utilitarianism|Proponents}}
Singer's ''[[Practical Ethics]]'' (1979) analyzes why and how living beings' interests should be weighed. His principle of equal consideration of interests does not dictate equal treatment of all those with interests, since different interests warrant different treatment. While all have an interest in avoiding pain, relatively few have an interest in cultivating their abilities. Not only does his principle justify different treatment for different interests, but it allows different treatment for the same interest when diminishing [[marginal utility]] is a factor. For example, this approach would privilege a starving person's interest in food over the same interest of someone who is only slightly hungry. Among the more important human interests are those in avoiding pain, in developing one's abilities, in satisfying basic needs for food and shelter, in enjoying warm personal relationships, in being free to pursue one's projects without interference, "and many others". The fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for "suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness". Singer holds that a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete needs. Ethical conduct is justified by reasons that go beyond [[prudence]] to "something bigger than the individual", addressing a larger audience. Singer thinks this going-beyond identifies moral reasons as "somehow universal", specifically in the injunction to 'love thy neighbour as thyself', interpreted by him as demanding that one give the same weight to the interests of others as one gives to one's own interests. This universalising step, which Singer traces from [[Immanuel Kant]] to Hare,<ref name="Singer-1993">{{cite book |first=Peter |last=Singer |title=Practical Ethics |publisher=Cambridge University Press |edition=2nd |year=1993 |isbn=978-0-521-43971-8}}</ref>{{rp|11}}is crucial and sets him apart from those moral theorists, from [[Thomas Hobbes]] to [[David Gauthier]], who tie morality to prudence. Universalisation leads directly to utilitarianism, Singer argues, on the strength of the thought that one's own interests cannot count for more than the interests of others.<ref name="Animal Liberation, pp. 211, 256">''Animal Liberation'', pp. 211, 256{{Full citation needed|date=March 2024}}</ref>

The utilitarian conclusion is that one must adopt the course of action that likely maximises the weighted interests of those affected. Singer's universalising step applies to interests without reference to who has them, whereas the Kantian's applies to the judgments of rational agents (for example in Kant's [[kingdom of Ends]] or [[John Rawls]]'s [[original position]]). Singer regards Kantian universalisation as unjust to animals.<ref name="Animal Liberation, pp. 211, 256" /> As for the Hobbesians, Singer attempts a response in the final chapter of ''Practical Ethics'', arguing that self-interested reasons support adoption of the moral point of view, such as "the [[paradox of hedonism]]", which counsels that happiness is best found by not looking for it, and the need most people feel to relate to something larger than their own concerns. Singer identifies as a [[sentientist]]; sentientism is an ethical position that grants moral consideration to all sentient beings.<ref>{{cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |title=Animal Liberation |publisher=Harper Collins |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-06-171130-5}}{{Page needed|date=March 2024}}</ref>

=== Effective altruism and world poverty ===
{{Main|Effective altruism}}
[[File:Peter Singer - Effective Altruism -Melb Australia Aug 2015.jpg|thumb|Singer at an effective altruism conference in [[Melbourne]] in 2015]]
Singer's ideas have contributed to the rise of effective altruism.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last1=Jollimore |first1=Troy |title=Impartiality |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/ |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=28 October 2018 |date=6 February 2017 |archive-date=25 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210825043151/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impartiality/ |url-status=live}}</ref> He argues that people should try not only to reduce suffering but to reduce it in the most effective manner possible. While Singer has previously written at length about the moral imperative to reduce poverty and eliminate the suffering of nonhuman animals, particularly in the [[meat industry]], he writes about how the effective altruism movement is doing these things more effectively in his 2015 book ''[[The Most Good You Can Do]]''. He is a board member of [[Animal Charity Evaluators]], a charity evaluator used by many members of the effective altruism community which recommends the most cost-effective animal advocacy charities and interventions.<ref>{{cite web |title=Board of Directors |url=https://animalcharityevaluators.org/about/contributors/meet-our-team/ |access-date=28 October 2018 |publisher=[[Animal Charity Evaluators]] |archive-date=22 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122031855/https://animalcharityevaluators.org/about/contributors/meet-our-team/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

His own organisation, The Life You Can Save (TLYCS), recommends a selection of charities deemed by charity evaluators such as [[GiveWell]] to be the most effective when it comes to helping those in extreme poverty. TLYCS was founded after Singer released his 2009 [[The Life You Can Save|eponymous book]], in which he argues more generally in favour of giving to charities that help to end global poverty. In particular, he expands upon some of the arguments made in his 1972 essay "[[Famine, Affluence, and Morality]]", in which he posits that citizens of rich nations are morally obligated to give at least some of their disposable income to charities that help the global poor. He supports this using the "drowning child analogy", which states that most people would rescue a drowning child from a pond, even if it meant that their expensive clothes were ruined. He argues that similarly, lives could be saved, notably by donating to effective charities, and that as a result a significant portion of the money spent on unnecessary possessions should instead be donate to charity.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1997-04-05 |title=The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle |url=https://newint.org/features/1997/04/05/peter-singer-drowning-child-new-internationalist |access-date=2024-04-08 |website=New Internationalist |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Skelton |first=Anthony |date=12 March 2009 |website=The Globe and Mail |title=Nobody can do everything, but everyone can do something |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/nobody-can-do-everything-but-everyone-can-do-something/article1149821/ |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=23 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200923141421/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/nobody-can-do-everything-but-everyone-can-do-something/article1149821/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Since November 2009, Singer is a member of [[Giving What We Can]], an international organisation whose members pledge to give at least 10% of their income to effective charities.<ref>{{Cite web |author=[[Giving What We Can]] |url=https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/members/ |title=Members |access-date=September 25, 2020 |archive-date=12 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200512001719/https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/members/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Animal liberation and speciesism ===
[[File:Peter Singer no Fronteiras do Pensamento São Paulo 2013 (9733467088).jpg|thumb|Singer in [[São Paulo]] in 2013]]
Published in 1975, ''[[Animal Liberation (book)|Animal Liberation]]'' has been cited as a formative influence on leaders of the modern [[animal liberation movement]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thankingthemonkey.com/about_karen_dawn.php |title=Karen Dawn's Biography |publisher=ThankingTheMonkey.com |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=24 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924063638/http://www.thankingthemonkey.com/about_karen_dawn.php |url-status=live}}</ref> The central argument of the book is an expansion of the [[utilitarian]] concept that "the greatest good of the greatest number" is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour, and Singer believes that there is no reason not to apply this principle to other animals, arguing that the boundary between human and "animal" is completely arbitrary. For example, there are far more differences between a [[great ape]] and an [[oyster]] than between a human and a great ape, and yet the former two are lumped together as "animals", whereas we are considered "human" in a way that supposedly differentiates us from all other "animals". He popularised the term "[[speciesism]]", which had been coined by English writer [[Richard D. Ryder]] to describe the practice of privileging humans over other animals, and therefore argues in favour of the equal consideration of interests of all sentient beings.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Waldau |first1=Paul |title=The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals |date=2002 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-514571-7 |pages=5, 23–29}}</ref>

In ''Animal Liberation'', Singer argues in favour of [[vegetarianism]] and against most [[Animal testing|animal experimentation]]. He stated in a 2006 interview that he does not eat meat and that he has been a vegetarian since 1971. He also said that he has "gradually become increasingly [[Veganism|vegan]]" and that "I am largely vegan but I'm a flexible vegan. I don't go to the supermarket and buy non-vegan stuff for myself. But when I'm traveling or going to other people's places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gilson |first=Dave |title=Chew the Right Thing |url=https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/chew-right-thing/ |access-date=2023-03-20 |website=Mother Jones |language=en-US |archive-date=17 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217233456/https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/chew-right-thing/ |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2022, Singer stated that he is not fully vegan because he occasionally consumes [[oyster]]s, [[mussel]]s, and [[clam]]s due to their lack of a central nervous system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kyung-mi |first=Lee |date=9 August 2022 |title=Why go vegan? Peter Singer answers |url=https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1054101.html |access-date=2023-03-20 |website=[[The Hankyoreh]] |archive-date=20 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320233642/https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1054101.html |url-status=live}}</ref> According to Singer, [[Ethics of eating meat|meat-eating can be ethically permissible]] if "farms really give the animals good lives, and then humanely kill them, preferably without transporting them to slaughterhouses or disturbing them. In ''Animal Liberation'', I don't really say that it's the killing that makes [meat-eating] wrong, it's the suffering."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Eaton |first=George |date=2021-05-26 |title=Peter Singer: Why the case for veganism is stronger than ever |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2021/05/peter-singer-why-case-veganism-stronger-ever |access-date=2023-03-20 |website=New Statesman |language=en-US |archive-date=20 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230320233648/https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2021/05/peter-singer-why-case-veganism-stronger-ever |url-status=live}}</ref>

In an article for the online publication [[Chinadialogue]], Singer called Western-style meat production cruel, unhealthy, and damaging to the ecosystem.<ref>{{cite news |last=Singer |first=Peter |date=30 August 2006 |title=The ethics of eating |url=https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/326-The-ethics-of-eating |access-date=28 October 2018 |newspaper=[[China Dialogue]] |archive-date=26 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190626090224/https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/326-The-ethics-of-eating |url-status=live}}</ref> He rejected the idea that the method was necessary to meet the population's increasing demand, explaining that animals in [[factory farm]]s have to eat food grown explicitly for them, and they burn up most of the food's energy just to breathe and keep their bodies warm. In a 2010 ''[[The Guardian|Guardian]]'' article he titled, "Fish: the forgotten victims on our plate", Singer drew attention to the welfare of fish. He quoted author Alison Mood's startling statistics from a report she wrote, which was released on fishcount.org.uk just a month before the ''Guardian'' article. Singer states that she "has put together what may well be the first-ever systematic estimate of the size of the annual global capture of wild fish. It is, she calculates, in the order of one trillion, although it could be as high as 2.7tn."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/sep/14/fish-forgotten-victims |title=Fish: the forgotten victims on our plate |date=14 September 2010 |work=The Guardian |access-date=28 October 2018 |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=28 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210228165247/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/sep/14/fish-forgotten-victims |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.fishcount.org.uk/published/standard/fishcountfullrptSR.pdf |title=Worse things happen at sea: the welfare of wild-caught fish |last=Mood |first=Alison |publisher=fishcount.org.uk |year=2010 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=18 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210818003057/http://www.fishcount.org.uk/published/standard/fishcountfullrptSR.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>{{efn|Singer erroneously quotes the estimated number of fish as tonnage rather than a count of individuals. The actual range is 970 billion to 2.7 trillion individual fish, approximated from the total catch of 77 million tons.}}

Some chapters of ''Animal Liberation'' are dedicated to criticising testing on animals. Unlike groups such as [[PETA]], Singer is willing to accept testing when there is a clear benefit for medicine. In November 2006, Singer appeared on the BBC programme ''Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing'' and said that he felt that [[Tipu Aziz]]'s experiments on monkeys for research into treating Parkinson's disease could be justified.<ref>{{cite news |last=Mangan |first=Lucy |date=28 November 2006 |location=London |newspaper=The Guardian |title=Last night's TV |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/28/animalwelfare.television |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=15 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210515014711/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/28/animalwelfare.television |url-status=live}}</ref> Whereas Singer has continued since the publication of ''Animal Liberation'' to promote vegetarianism and veganism, he has been much less vocal in recent years on the subject of animal experimentation. Singer has defended some of the actions of the [[Animal Liberation Front]] such as the stealing of footage from Thomas Gennarelli's laboratory in May 1984 (as shown in the documentary ''[[Unnecessary Fuss]]'') but condemned other actions such as the use of explosives by some animal-rights activists, and sees the freeing of captive animals as largely futile when they are easily replaced.<ref>{{cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |date=2011a |title=Practical Ethics |edition=3rd |location= |publisher=Cambridge University Press |page=274 |isbn=978-1-139-49689-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |year=2015 |title=Animal Liberation |location= |publisher=Random House |page=xxix |isbn=978-1-4735-2442-2 |chapter=Preface |edition=revised}}</ref> Singer features in the 2017 documentary ''Empathy'', directed by Ed Antoja, which aims to promote a more respectful way of life towards all animals. The documentary won the "Public Choice Award" of the Greenpeace Film Festival.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Projection de film : Empathy (Complet) |url=https://www.vegevents.com/events/projection-de-film-empathy-complet/ |access-date=2021-05-13 |website=VegEvents |language=en-US |archive-date=14 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210514214410/https://www.vegevents.com/events/projection-de-film-empathy-complet/ |url-status=live}}</ref> Singer has frequently collaborated on op-eds and otherwise with animal rights advocate [[Karen Dawn]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Singer |first1=Peter |last2=Dawn |first2=Karen |title=Op-Ed: Harambe the gorilla dies, meat-eaters grieve |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singer-dawn-harambe-death-zoo-20160605-snap-story.html |work=Los Angeles Times |date=5 June 2016 |access-date=1 January 2024 |archive-date=1 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101141856/https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singer-dawn-harambe-death-zoo-20160605-snap-story.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kateman |first1=Brian |title=How to stop cruel factory farming: start with one animal |url=https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/19/15827828/factory-farming-switchetarian-beef-chicken |work=Vox |date=19 June 2017 |language=en |access-date=1 January 2024 |archive-date=1 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101141856/https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/19/15827828/factory-farming-switchetarian-beef-chicken |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Singer |first1=Peter |last2=Dawn |first2=Karen |title=Op-Ed: Thinking of giving up red meat? Half measures may end up increasing animal suffering |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singer-dawn-vegetarian-half-measures-20161016-snap-story.html |work=Los Angeles Times |date=16 October 2016 |access-date=1 January 2024 |archive-date=1 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240101141855/https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-singer-dawn-vegetarian-half-measures-20161016-snap-story.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Other views ===

==== Meta-ethical views ====

In the past, Singer did not hold that objective moral values exist, on the basis that reason could favour both egoism and [[equal consideration of interests]]. Singer himself adopted utilitarianism on the basis that people's preferences can be universalised, leading to a situation where one takes the "point of view of the universe" and "an impartial standpoint". In the second edition of ''Practical Ethics'', he concedes that the question of why we should act morally "cannot be given an answer that will provide everyone with overwhelming reasons for acting morally".<ref name="Singer-1993" />{{rp|335}}

When co-authoring ''The Point of View of the Universe'' (2014), Singer shifted to the position that objective moral values do exist, and defends the 19th century utilitarian philosopher [[Henry Sidgwick]]'s view that objective morality can be derived from fundamental moral axioms that are knowable by reason. Additionally, he endorses [[Derek Parfit]]'s view that there are object-given reasons for action.<ref name="De Lazari-Radek-2014">{{cite book |last1=De Lazari-Radek |first1=Katarzyna |last2=Singer |first2=Peter |title=The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics |date=2014 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-960369-5}}</ref>{{rp|126}} Furthermore, Singer and [[Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek]] (the co-author of the book) argue that [[evolutionary debunking]] arguments can be used to demonstrate that it is more rational to take the impartial standpoint of "the point of view of the universe", as opposed to egoism—pursuing one's own self-interest—because the existence of egoism is more likely to be the product of evolution by natural selection, rather than because it is correct, whereas taking an impartial standpoint and equally considering the interests of all sentient beings is in conflict with what we would expect from natural selection, meaning that it is more likely that impartiality in ethics is the correct stance to pursue.<ref name="De Lazari-Radek-2014" />{{rp|182–183}}

==== Political views ====
[[File:Peter Singer 2017-01 (cropped).jpg|thumb|Singer in 2017]]
Whilst a student in Melbourne, Singer campaigned against the [[Vietnam War]] as president of the Melbourne University Campaign Against Conscription.<ref name="Singer-2011">{{cite book |last1=Singer |first1=Peter |editor1-last=Schaler |editor1-first=Jeffrey A. |title=Peter Singer Under Fire: The Moral Iconoclast Faces His Critics |date=2011b |publisher=Open Court Publishing |location=Chicago |isbn=978-0-8126-9769-8 |page=7 |chapter=An Intellectual Autobiography}}</ref> He also spoke publicly for the legalization of [[abortion in Australia]].<ref name="Singer-2011" /> Singer joined the [[Labor Party (Australia)|Australian Labor Party]] in 1974 but resigned after disillusionment with the centrist leadership of [[Bob Hawke]]; in 1992, he became a founding member of the [[Victorian Greens]].{{sfnp|Singer|2011b|pp=58–59}}  He has run for political office twice for the Greens: he received 28% of the vote in the [[1994 Kooyong by-election]], and received 3% of the vote in 1996 when running for the [[Australian Senate]] (elected by [[proportional representation]]).{{sfnp|Singer|2011b|pp=58–59}} Before the 1996 election, he co-authored a book ''The Greens'' with [[Bob Brown]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Singer |first1=Peter |last2=Brown |first2=Bob |date=1996 |title=The Greens |publisher=Text Publishing Company |isbn=978-1-875847-17-4}}</ref> In ''[[A Darwinian Left]]'',  Singer outlines a plan for the [[political left]] to adapt to the lessons of [[evolutionary biology]]. He says that [[evolutionary psychology]] suggests that humans naturally tend to be self-interested. He further argues that the evidence that selfish tendencies are natural must not be taken as evidence that selfishness is "right". He concludes that [[game theory]] (the mathematical study of strategy) and experiments in psychology offer hope that self-interested people would make short-term sacrifices for the good of others, if society provides the right conditions.<ref>{{cite book |first=Peter |last=Singer |title=A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation |location=New Haven |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-300-08323-1}}</ref>

Singer argues that although humans possess selfish, competitive tendencies naturally, they have a substantial capacity for [[co-operation (evolution)|cooperation]] that also has been selected for during [[human evolution]]. Singer's writing in ''Greater Good'' magazine, published by the [[Greater Good Science Center]] of the [[University of California, Berkeley]], explores scientific studies on why people are compassionate, selfless, and capable of forming peaceful relationships. Singer has criticized the United States for receiving "oil from countries run by dictators ... who pocket most of the" financial gains, thus "keeping the people in poverty". Singer believes that the wealth of these countries "should belong to the people" within them rather than their "de facto government. In paying dictators for their oil, we are in effect buying stolen goods, and helping to keep people in poverty." Singer holds that America "should be doing more to assist people in extreme poverty". He is disappointed in U.S. foreign aid policy, deeming it "a very small proportion of our GDP, less than a quarter of some other affluent nations." Singer maintains that little "private philanthropy from the U.S." is "directed to helping people in extreme poverty, although there are some exceptions, most notably, of course, the [[Gates Foundation]]."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com/2017/09/interview-how-do-practical-ethics-work.html |title=Interview: How do practical ethics work in the average American's life? Peter Singer explains. |last=Cotto |first=Joseph Ford |date=26 September 2017 |website=[[San Francisco Review of Books]] |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171031215904/http://www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com/2017/09/interview-how-do-practical-ethics-work.html |archive-date=31 October 2017}}</ref>

Singer describes himself as not [[anti-capitalist]], stating in a 2010 interview with the New Left Project: "Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy."<ref name="Singer-2010">{{cite web |last1=Singer |first1=Peter |last2=Lewis |first2=Edward |date=16 March 2010 |title=Ethics and the Left |url=http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/ethics_and_the_left/ |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028225703/http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/ethics_and_the_left/ |archive-date=28 October 2018 |access-date=28 October 2018 |publisher=Newleftproject.org}}</ref> Singer added that "[i]f we ever do find a better system, I'll be happy to call myself an anti-capitalist."<ref name="Singer-2010" /> Similarly, in his book ''Marx'', Singer is sympathetic to [[Karl Marx]]'s criticism of capitalism but is skeptical about whether a better system is likely to be created, writing: "Marx saw that capitalism is a wasteful, irrational system, a system which controls us when we should be controlling it. That insight is still valid; but we can now see that the construction of a free and equal society is a more difficult task than Marx realized."<ref>{{cite book |first=Peter |last=Singer |title=Marx: A Very Short Introduction |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2000 |page=100 |url=https://archive.org/details/marxveryshortint00sing_0/page/100/mode/1up?view=theater |url-access=registration |isbn=978-0-19-285405-6 |access-date=28 October 2018}}</ref>

Singer is opposed to the death penalty, claiming that it does not effectively deter the crimes for which it is the punitive measure,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-death-penalty---again |title=The Death Penalty – Again |work=[[Project Syndicate]] |date=12 October 2011 |first=Peter |last=Singer |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=7 September 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170907041034/https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-death-penalty---again |url-status=live}}</ref> and that he cannot see any other justification for it.<ref>{{Cite interview |last=Singer |first=Peter |interviewer=Julia Taylor Kennedy |title=Ethics Matter: Conversation with Moral Philosopher Peter Singer |url=https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/series/gt/20111006-ethics-matter-conversation-with-moral-philosopher-peter-singer |access-date=13 July 2023 |publisher=[[Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs]] |date=13 October 2011 |series=Ethics Matter Interview Series |archive-date=13 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230713014938/https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/series/gt/20111006-ethics-matter-conversation-with-moral-philosopher-peter-singer |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2010, Singer signed a petition renouncing his [[Law of Return|right of return to Israel]] because it is "a form of racist privilege that abets the colonial oppression of the Palestinians."<ref>{{cite news |first=Dan |last=Goldberg |url=https://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/interviews/72965/peter-singer-he-really-most-dangerous-man-world |title=Peter Singer: is he really the most dangerous man in the world? |newspaper=The Jewish Chronicle |date=16 August 2012 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=5 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221205170808/https://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/interviews/72965/peter-singer-he-really-most-dangerous-man-world |url-status=dead}}</ref> Singer called on [[Jill Stein]] to withdraw from the [[2016 United States presidential election]] in states that were close between [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Donald Trump]] on the grounds that the stakes were "too high".<ref name="Singer-2016">{{cite web |url=https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jill-stein-should-withdraw-battleground-states-by-peter-singer-2016-08 |first=Peter |last=Singer |title=Greens for Trump? |work=Project Syndicate |date=11 August 2016 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=24 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230724101035/https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jill-stein-should-withdraw-battleground-states-by-peter-singer-2016-08 |url-status=live}}</ref> He argued against the view that there was no significant difference between Clinton and Trump, whilst also saying that he would not advocate such a tactic in Australia's electoral system, which allows for ranking of preferences.<ref name="Singer-2016" /> When writing in 2017 on Trump's [[climate change denial]] and plans to withdraw from the Paris Accords, Singer advocated a boycott of all consumer goods from the United States to pressure the Trump administration to change its environmental policies.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-climate-disater-boycott-america-by-peter-singer-2017-04 |title=Boycott America? |last=Singer |first=Peter |date=6 April 2017 |website=Project Syndicate |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=20 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230620231505/https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-climate-disater-boycott-america-by-peter-singer-2017-04 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/paris-accord-unfair-to-america-by-peter-singer-2017-06 |title=Is the Paris Accord Unfair to America? |last=Singer |first=Peter |date=5 June 2017 |website=Project Syndicate |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=20 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230620230750/https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/paris-accord-unfair-to-america-by-peter-singer-2017-06 |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2021, Singer described the [[war on drugs]] as an expensive, ineffective and extremely harmful policy.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Plant |first1=Michael |last2=Singer |first2=Peter |date=2021-05-04 |title=Why drugs should be not only decriminalized, but fully legalized |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2021/05/why-drugs-should-be-not-only-decriminalised-fully-legalised |access-date=2021-05-22 |website=www.newstatesman.com |language=en |archive-date=12 August 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210812034751/https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2021/05/why-drugs-should-be-not-only-decriminalised-fully-legalised |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Euthanasia and infanticide ====
[[File:Peter Singer.jpg|thumb|Singer lecturing at [[Oxford University]] in 2007]]
Singer has argued that the right to life is essentially tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Johnson |first=Harriet McBryde |date=February 16, 2003 |title=Unspeakable Conversations |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html}}</ref> In ''Practical Ethics'', Singer argues in favour of [[abortion rights]] on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an [[abortion]] automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks [[personhood]]. Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"<ref>[http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm Taking Life: Humans] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205000916/http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm |date=5 February 2017}}, Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, 1993</ref>—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".<ref>{{cite web |last=Singer |first=Peter |url=https://petersinger.info/faq/ |title=Peter Singer FAQ |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=22 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230622185445/https://petersinger.info/faq/ |url-status=dead}}</ref> Singer has clarified that his "view of when life begins isn't very different from that of opponents of abortion." He deems it not "unreasonable to hold that an individual human life begins at conception. If it doesn't, then it begins about 14 days later, when it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples." Singer disagrees with abortion rights opponents in that he does not "think that the fact that an embryo is a living human being is sufficient to show that it is wrong to kill it." Singer wishes "to see American jurisprudence, and the national abortion debate, take up the question of which capacities a human being needs to have in order for it to be wrong to kill it" as well as "when, in the development of the early human being, these capacities are present."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com/2017/09/interview-when-does-human-life-begin.html |title=When does human life begin -- and what does this really mean? Peter Singer explains. |last=Cotto |first=Joseph Ford |website=[[San Francisco Review of Books]] |date=27 September 2017 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210117062913/http://www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com/2017/09/interview-when-does-human-life-begin.html |archive-date=17 January 2021}}</ref>

Singer classifies [[euthanasia]] as [[voluntary euthanasia|voluntary]], [[involuntary euthanasia|involuntary]], or [[non-voluntary euthanasia|non-voluntary]]. Voluntary euthanasia is that to which the subject consents. He argues in favour of voluntary euthanasia and some forms of non-voluntary euthanasia, including infanticide in certain instances, but opposes involuntary euthanasia. Bioethicists associated with the [[disability rights]] and [[disability studies]] communities have argued that his epistemology is based on [[ableist]] conceptions of disability.<ref>{{cite book |title=Writings on an Ethical Life |first=Peter |last=Singer |chapter=An Interview |year=2001 |pages=319–329 |publisher=Fourth Estate |isbn=978-1-84115-550-0}}</ref> Singer's positions have also been criticised by some advocates for disability rights and [[right-to-life]] supporters, concerned with what they see as his attacks upon [[human dignity]]. Religious critics have argued that Singer's ethics ignores and undermines the traditional notion of the [[sanctity of life]]. Singer agrees and believes the notion of the sanctity of life ought to be discarded as outdated, unscientific, and irrelevant to understanding problems in contemporary bioethics.<ref>Singer, Peter ''Rithinking Life and Death: The Collapse of our Traditional Ethics'', Text Publishing, 1994.</ref> Disability rights activists have held many protests against Singer at Princeton University and at his lectures over the years. Singer has replied that many people judge him based on secondhand summaries and short quotations taken out of context, not on his books or articles, and that his aim is to elevate the status of animals, not to lower that of humans.{{sfnp|Singer|1993|pp=77–78|ps=. "[T]he aim of my argument is to elevate the status of animals rather than to lower the status of any humans"}}

American publisher [[Steve Forbes]] ceased his donations to [[Princeton University]] in 1999 because of Singer's appointment to a prestigious professorship.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html |title=Steve Forbes Declines Princeton Financial Backing Due to Singer Hiring |publisher=Euthanasia.com |date=21 September 1999 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=11 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220211071438/http://www.euthanasia.com/forb.html |url-status=live}}</ref> Nazi-hunter [[Simon Wiesenthal]] wrote to organisers of a Swedish book fair to which Singer was invited that "[a] professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level."<ref>{{cite web |first=Don |last=Felder |url=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp |title=Professor Death will fit right in at Princeton |publisher=[[Jewish World Review]] |date=28 October 1998 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=20 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230620230732/http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp |url-status=live}}</ref> Conservative psychiatrist [[Theodore Dalrymple]] wrote in 2010 that Singerian moral universalism is "preposterous—psychologically, theoretically, and practically".<ref>{{cite book |last=Dalrymple |first=Theodore |title=Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality |publisher=Gibson Square Books Ltd |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-906142-61-2 |page=226 |title-link=Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality}}</ref> In 2002, disability rights activist [[Harriet McBryde Johnson]] debated Singer, challenging his belief that it is morally permissible to euthanise newborn children with severe disabilities. "Unspeakable Conversations", Johnson's account of her encounters with Singer and the pro-euthanasia movement, was published in the ''New York Times Magazine'' in 2003.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html |first=Harriet |last=McBryde Johnson |title=Unspeakable Conversations |magazine=The New York Times Magazine |date=16 February 2003 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=13 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230813152909/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html |url-status=live}}</ref> In 2015, Singer debated Archbishop [[Anthony Fisher]] on the legalisation of euthanasia at [[Sydney Town Hall]].<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/euthanasia-debate-archbishop-anthony-fisher-and-ethicist-peter-singer-to-debate-euthanasia-20150807-giu6hk.html |first=Amy |last=Corderoy |title=Euthanasia debate: Archbishop Anthony Fisher and ethicist Peter Singer to debate euthanasia |magazine=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=8 August 2015 |access-date=6 October 2021 |archive-date=22 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230622234740/https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/euthanasia-debate-archbishop-anthony-fisher-and-ethicist-peter-singer-to-debate-euthanasia-20150807-giu6hk.html |url-status=live}}</ref> Singer rejected arguments that legalising euthanasia would result in a slippery slope where the practice might become widespread as a means to remove undesirable people for financial or other motives.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://theconversation.com/singer-and-fisher-preach-to-their-flocks-in-euthanasia-debate-45880 |first=Benjamin |last=Jones |title=Singer and Fisher preach to their flocks in euthanasia debate |magazine=The Conversation |date=14 August 2015 |access-date=6 October 2021 |archive-date=22 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230622234740/https://theconversation.com/singer-and-fisher-preach-to-their-flocks-in-euthanasia-debate-45880 |url-status=live}}</ref> Singer has experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. His mother had [[Alzheimer's disease]]. He said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult."<ref name="Specter-1999">{{cite magazine |last=Specter |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Specter |date=6 September 1999 |title=The Dangerous Philosopher |url=https://www.michaelspecter.com/wp-content/uploads/philosopher.pdf |access-date=19 July 2023 |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |archive-date=28 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211028200548/http://www.michaelspecter.com/wp-content/uploads/philosopher.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> In an interview with [[Ronald Bailey]], published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He said that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.<ref>{{cite magazine |first=Ronald |last=Bailey |url=https://reason.com/archives/2000/12/01/the-pursuit-of-happiness-peter |title=The Pursuit of Happiness, Peter Singer interviewed by Ronald Bailey |date=December 2000 |magazine=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=11 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190111062525/http://reason.com/archives/2000/12/01/the-pursuit-of-happiness-peter |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Surrogacy ====
In 1985, Singer wrote a book with the physician Deanne Wells arguing that [[surrogate motherhood]] should be allowed and regulated by the state by establishing nonprofit 'State Surrogacy Boards', which would ensure fairness between surrogate mothers and surrogacy-seeking parents. Singer and Wells endorsed both the payment of medical expenses endured by surrogate mothers and an extra "fair fee" to compensate the surrogate mother.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Singer |first1=Peter |last2=Wells |first2=Deane |title=Making Babies: The New Science and Ethics of Conception |year=1987 |publisher=C. Scribner's Sons}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Rosemarie |last=Tong |editor1-first=R. G. |editor1-last=Frey |editor2-first=Christopher Heath |editor2-last=Wellman |title=A Companion to Applied Ethics |chapter=Chapter 27: Surrogate Motherhood |page=376 |isbn=978-1-55786-594-6 |date=2003 |publisher=Wiley}}</ref>

==== Religion ====
[[File:Peter Singer MIT Veritas.jpg|thumb|Singer at a [[Veritas Forum]] event at [[MIT]] in 2009]]
Singer was a speaker at the 2012 [[Global Atheist Convention]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Peter Singer |url=http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/peter-singer/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20131201121355/http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/peter-singer/ |archive-date=1 December 2013 |access-date=28 October 2018 |publisher=[[Atheist Foundation of Australia]]}}</ref> He has debated with Christians including [[John Lennox]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]].<ref>{{cite web |date=6 September 2011 |title=Singer vs Lennox: Is There a God? |url=https://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/09/06/3310342.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161127094518/https://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/09/06/3310342.htm |archive-date=27 November 2016 |access-date=28 October 2018 |publisher=[[ABC News (Australia)|ABC News]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Isia |last=Jaasiewicz |url=https://paw.princeton.edu/article/singer-dsouza-face-over-religion-and-morality |title=Singer, D'Souza face off over religion and morality |work=Princeton Alumni Weekly |date=28 January 2009 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-date=22 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230622185451/https://paw.princeton.edu/article/singer-dsouza-face-over-religion-and-morality |url-status=live}}</ref> Singer has pointed to the [[problem of evil]] as an objection against the Christian conception of God. He stated: "The evidence of our own eyes makes it more plausible to believe that the world was not created by any god at all. If, however, we insist on believing in divine creation, we are forced to admit that the god who made the world cannot be all-powerful and all good. He must be either evil or a bungler."<ref name="Peter Singer-2008">{{cite web |url=https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-god-of-suffering |title=The God of Suffering? |author=Peter Singer |work=Project Syndicate |date=8 May 2008 |access-date=28 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150707083330/http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-god-of-suffering |archive-date=7 July 2015}}</ref> In keeping with his considerations of nonhuman animals, Singer also takes issue with the [[original sin]] reply to the problem of evil, saying that, "animals also suffer from floods, fires, and droughts, and, since they are not descended from Adam and Eve, they cannot have inherited original sin."<ref name="Peter Singer-2008" />

====Medical intervention in the aging process====
Singer supports the view that medical intervention into the ageing process would do more to improve human life than research on therapies for specific chronic diseases in the developed world. He stated:

{{cquote|In developed countries, aging is the ultimate cause of 90 per cent of all human deaths. Thus, treating aging is a form of preventive medicine for all of the diseases of old age. Moreover, even before aging leads to our death, it reduces our capacity to enjoy our lives and to contribute positively to the lives of others. So, instead of targeting specific diseases that are much more likely to occur when people have reached a certain age, wouldn't a better strategy be to try to forestall or repair the damage done to our bodies by the aging process?<ref name="Singer-2012">{{cite news |last1=Singer |first1=Peter |title=Should we live to 1,000? |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/should-we-live-to-1000/article6657495/ |access-date=4 June 2021 |work=[[The Globe and Mail]] |date=December 27, 2012 |archive-date=21 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230621035807/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/should-we-live-to-1000/article6657495/ |url-status=live}}</ref>}}

Singer worries that "If we discover how to slow aging, we might have a world in which the poor majority must face death at a time when members of the rich minority are only a 10th of the way through their expected lifespans", thus risking that "overcoming aging will increase the stock of injustice in the world".<ref name="Singer-2012"/> Singer cautiously highlights that as with other medical developments, they would reach the more economically disadvantaged over time once developed, whereas they can never do so if they are not.<ref name="Singer-2012"/> As to the concern that longer lives might contribute to [[overpopulation]], Singer notes that "success in overcoming aging could itself ... delay or eliminate [[menopause]], enabling women to have their first children much later than they can now" and thus slowing the birth rate, and also that technology may reduce the consequences of rising human populations by (for instance) enabling more zero-greenhouse gas energy sources.<ref name="Singer-2012"/>

In 2012, Singer's department sponsored the "Science and Ethics of Eliminating Aging" seminar at Princeton.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wang |first1=Angela |title=Scholar on aging argues people can now live to 1,000 |url=https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2012/10/scholar-on-aging-argues-people-can-now-live-to-1000 |access-date=5 June 2021 |work=[[The Daily Princetonian]] |date=October 4, 2012 |archive-date=20 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230620231505/https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2012/10/scholar-on-aging-argues-people-can-now-live-to-1000 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Protests===
[[File:Peter Singer no Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre (9620101528).jpg|thumb|Singer lecturing in [[Porto Alegre]], Brazil, in 2012]]
In 1989 and 1990, Singer's work was the subject of a number of protests in Germany. A course in ethics led by Hartmut Kliemt at the [[University of Duisburg]] where the main text used was Singer's ''Practical Ethics'' was, according to Singer, "subjected to organised and repeated disruption by protesters objecting to the use of the book on the grounds that in one of its ten chapters it advocates active euthanasia for severely disabled newborn infants". The protests led to the course being shut down.<ref name="Singer-2001">{{cite book |title=Writings on an Ethical Life |first=Peter |last=Singer |chapter=On Being Silenced in Germany |year=2001 |pages=303–318 |publisher=Fourth Estate |isbn=978-1-84115-550-0}}</ref>

When Singer tried to speak during a lecture at [[Saarbrücken]], he was interrupted by a group of protesters including advocates for [[disability rights]]. One of the protesters expressed that entering serious discussions would be a tactical error.<ref>Holger Dorf, "Singer in Saabrücken", ''Unirevue'' (Winter Semester, 1989/90), p.47.</ref> The same year, Singer was invited to speak in [[Marburg]] at a European symposium on "Bioengineering, Ethics and Mental Disability". The invitation was fiercely attacked by leading intellectuals and organisations in the German media, with an article in ''[[Der Spiegel]]'' comparing Singer's positions to [[Nazism]]. Eventually, the symposium was cancelled and Singer's invitation withdrawn.<ref>{{cite web |first=Sheri |last=Berman |author-link=Sheri Berman |url=http://bc.barnard.edu/~sberman/Pages/publications/Brill.pdf |title=Euthanasia, Eugenics and Fascism: How Close are the Connections |publisher=German Politics and Society 17(3) |date=Fall 1999 |archive-date=2 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402234446/http://bc.barnard.edu/~sberman/Pages/publications/Brill.pdf |access-date=28 October 2018}}</ref>

A lecture at the Zoological Institute of the [[University of Zurich]] was interrupted by two groups of protesters. The first group was a group of disabled people who staged a brief protest at the beginning of the lecture. They objected to inviting an advocate of euthanasia to speak. At the end of this protest, when Singer tried to address their concerns, a second group of protesters rose and began chanting ''Singer raus! Singer raus!'' ("Singer out!" in German) When Singer attempted to respond, a protester jumped on stage and grabbed his glasses, and the host ended the lecture. Singer explains "my views are not threatening to anyone, even minimally", and says that some groups play on the anxieties of those who hear only keywords that are understandably worrying (given the constant fears of ever repeating the Holocaust) if taken with any less than the full context of his belief system.<ref name="Singer-1993" />{{rp|pages=346–359}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://criticanarede.com/html/ed99.html |title=Criticanarede.com |publisher=Criticanarede.com |date=31 May 2005 |access-date=28 October 2018 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110122145916/http://criticanarede.com/html/ed99.html |archive-date=22 January 2011}}</ref>

In 1991, Singer was due to speak along with [[R. M. Hare]] and {{ill|Georg Meggle|de}} at the 15th [[International Wittgenstein Symposium]] in [[Kirchberg am Wechsel]], Austria. Singer has stated that threats were made to Adolf Hübner, then the president of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, that the conference would be disrupted if Singer and Meggle were given a platform. Hübner proposed to the board of the society that Singer's invitation, as well as the invitations of a number of other speakers, be withdrawn. The Society decided to cancel the symposium.<ref name="Singer-2001" />

In an article originally published in ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', Singer argued that the protests dramatically increased the amount of coverage he received, saying that "instead of a few hundred people hearing views at lectures in Marburg and Dortmund, several millions read about them or listened to them on television". Despite this, Singer argues that it has led to a difficult intellectual climate, with professors in Germany unable to teach courses on applied ethics and campaigns demanding the resignation of professors who invited Singer to speak.<ref name="Singer-2001" />

=== Criticism ===
Singer was criticised in 2017 for an [[op-ed]] co-written with [[Jeff McMahan (philosopher)|Jeff McMahan]], in which he defends [[Anna Stubblefield]], who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault against D.J., a man with severe physical disability. Singer and McMahan argued that the judge refused to consider independent evidence that D.J. was indirectly able to communicate, and could have been interrogated. They argued that Anna Stubblefield believes her love to be reciprocal, and that D.J. still had not given sign of hostility towards Stubblefield.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=McMahan |first1=Jeff |last2=Singer |first2=Peter |date=April 3, 2017 |title=Who Is the Victim in the Anna Stubblefield Case? |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/opinion/who-is-the-victim-in-the-anna-stubblefield-case.html}}</ref> [[Nathan J. Robinson]], founder of [[Current Affairs (magazine)|''Current Affairs'']], criticised when Singer and McMahan wrote that even supposing that D.J. is not just physically but also cognitively impaired (which they contest), then D.J. may not even understand the concept of consent, and it "seems reasonable to assume that the experience was pleasurable to him", as "he was capable of struggling to resist." Robinson called this a "rape", and considers that Singer and McMahan's argument implies that it would be permissible to rape or sexually assault sufficiently disabled people as long as they do not try to resist.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Robinson |first1=Nathan J. |date=4 April 2017 |title=Now Peter Singer argues that it might be okay to rape disabled people |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2017/04/now-peter-singer-argues-that-it-might-be-okay-to-rape-disabled-people |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230910115349/https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/now-peter-singer-argues-that-it-might-be-okay-to-rape-disabled-people |archive-date=10 September 2023 |access-date=21 April 2019 |work=Current Affairs}}</ref>

[[Roger Scruton]] was critical of the [[consequentialist]], utilitarian approach of Singer.<ref name="Scruton-2017">{{cite book |last=Scruton |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Scruton |title=On Human Nature |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=Princeton and Oxford |date=2017 |page=91 |isbn=978-0-691-18303-9}}</ref><!--<ref>{{Cite journal |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/parfit-the-perfectionist/D24A41080134F08EFD7074839C998DE6 |title=Parfit the Perfectionist |first=Roger |last=Scruton |date=10 October 2014 |journal=Philosophy |volume=89 |issue=4 |pages=621–634 |via=Cambridge Core |doi=10.1017/S0031819114000266}}</ref>--> Scruton alleged that Singer's works, including ''[[Animal Liberation (book)|Animal Liberation]]'' (1975), "contain little or no philosophical argument. They derive their radical moral conclusions from a vacuous utilitarianism that counts the pain and pleasure of all living things as equally significant and that ignores just about everything that has been said in our philosophical tradition about the real distinction between persons and animals."<ref name="Scruton-2017"/> Anthropologists have criticised Singer's foundational essay "Animal Liberation", published in 1973,<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Singer |first=Peter |date=5 April 1973 |title=Animal Liberation |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1973/04/05/animal-liberation/ |magazine=The New York Review |access-date=18 April 2021 |archive-date=18 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418115932/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1973/04/05/animal-liberation/ |url-status=live}}</ref> for comparing the interests of "slum children" with the interests of the rats that bite them – at a time when poor and predominantly Black American children were regularly attacked and bitten by rats, sometimes fatally.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cherkaev |first=Xenia |title=Zoo-Fascism, Russia: To Hell with Equality and Ownerless Dogs |url=https://culanth.org/fieldsights/zoo-fascism-russia-to-hell-with-equality-and-ownerless-dogs |access-date=2021-04-18 |website=Society for Cultural Anthropology |date=15 April 2021 |language=en |archive-date=22 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230622185449/https://culanth.org/fieldsights/zoo-fascism-russia-to-hell-with-equality-and-ownerless-dogs |url-status=live}}</ref>