Editing Peter Singer (section)

=== 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>