Final Blog Post: Applying Peter Singer's "Ethics in the Real World" to Our New World Today

Originally published in 2016, Peter Singer's book Ethics in the Real World: 82 Brief Essays on Things That Matter addresses a range of topics and explores many important philosophical questions of today.



Four years ago, Peter Singer had no clue that in 2020 the outbreak of a global pandemic would force everyone to uproot their way of life and reexamine their individual role in this world. This event has made the issue of ethics and our ethical choices more important than ever, so I have chosen a handful of Singer's essays that I feel are the most relevant to today.

The first essay in Peter Singer's book is titled, "The Value of a Pale Blue Dot."

At the beginning of the semester we looked at Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. 

Here, we see our planet, the place containing millions of species, boundless mountains, deserts, and jungles, and bodies of water spanning millions of square miles, as only a speck in the cosmos.

In this essay, Singer talks about how, not only does this photo help us confront our insignificance in the universe, but it also has "the incidental benefit of distracting us from nasty things nearer to home." Along with Sagan, Singer cites the words of Bertrand Russell and his essay "Dreams and Facts." Russell writes,"no man is liberated from fear who dare not see his place in the world as it is... until he has allowed himself to see his own littleness." Today, fear and uncertainty permeates everything we do. None of us know what this pandemic means for our future or the future state of the world. Therefore, adopting a cosmic perspective and remembering just how small we really are can truly help to diminish what feels like a crushing weight on us all. It can be comforting to know that we aren't the center of the universe.

Like Sagan, Singer points out in his essay that, "Russell did not take the view that our insignificance... meant that the end of life on Earth did not matter." Carl Sagan stressed that this photo "underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." Especially now, we must remember to care for one another and value the lives of the people around us.


The next essay I want to focus is titled "Does Anything Matter?" This essay examines whether moral judgements contain any objective truth. One key argument against ethical objectivism is that even the most intelligent of philosophers disagree about what is right and wrong. Singer asks:

"If great thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham disagree about what we out to do, can there really ben an objectively true answer to that question?"

To answer this question, Singer cites On What Matters by Derek Parfit. Parfit essentially believes that, unless we can prove that objectivism is true, nothing matters. But what matters most now is that, "we rich people give up some of our luxuries, ceasing to overheat the Earth's atmosphere, and taking care of this planet in other ways, so that it continues to support intelligent life."



Derek Parfit passed away in 2017. Here is a quote in honor of him:

We live our lives in constant pursuit of answers and the truth. We are continuously questioning the nature of our reality. Right now, we are in perpetual disagreement over what we should do and who we should listen to, and people keep putting their own interests before the lives of others. However, unless there is intelligent life to ask and debate these questions, none of these questions matter. We cannot let our desires of being right and proving others wrong or our pursuit of personal pleasure divert us from this fact.

In this video, Peter Singer talks about the hedonistic paradox, an idea relating back to why we should make a point to behave morally and look beyond ourselves.

Next, I would like to look at the issue of healthcare.

Healthcare has always been at the forefront of American politics, but right now, it truly has become the most vital and consequential issue of today, both nationwide and worldwide. Unlike most industrialized countries, where healthcare is considered to be an intrinsic right, in America, millions of citizens struggle to afford adequate healthcare and health insurance. In every country, however, there is one underlying issue that remains universal: the struggle to regulate health-care costs.

Singer's essay "The Many Crises of Health Care," examines the futile and unprincipled procedures of the healthcare system in the United States.

In his essay, Singer states that, in the United States, "about 27 percent of Medicare's budget goes toward care in the last year of life." The problem is though, many of these patients do not want to receive this care, as prolonging their life will only lead to more suffering. But because doctors fear being sued by the family, patients close to death will continue to be resuscitated even "against the doctor's better judgement." Making this even more problematic, The World Health Organization estimates that "its immunization programs in developing countries cost about $300 per saved life," and this is not just for a few weeks or a year, but usually for a lifetime. Likewise, a program claims to be able to treat tuberculosis in developing countries, granting people an extra year of life, for a cost between $5 to $50.

All of this considered, does that make spending tens of thousands of dollars on a patient in an affluent country only to give them a little bit more time morally wrong? Peter Singer believes that it does.

There is also the system by which doctors and hospitals are paid.

Singer states in his essay that "hospitals are paid a fee for each service they provide," meaning that the fewer services a patient requires the less money they will make. Therefore, when a network of hospitals enhanced their treatment for newborn babies, decreasing the time spent in intensive care and the number of services required, this change "cost the hospital network $329,000 a year." This type of system yields the incentive to issue more services in order to earn more money, regardless of whether it's beneficial to the patient. There is no denying that there is something blatantly wrong with this type of system.


Finally, I would like to focus on a subject that's been brought up a lot this semester. Peter Singer calls this essay, "The Tragic Cost of Being Unscientific." Here, Singer draws attention to the dire consequences of ignoring or rejecting science.

At the start of the 21st century, South Africa's president, Thabo Mbeki "rejected the scientific consensus that AIDS is caused by a virus, HIV, and that antiretroviral drugs can save the lives of people who test positive for it." Instead, he accepted the views of a small group of scientists who pointed at other causes. Even when the evidence became irrefutable, "Mbeki stubbornly continued to embrace this position." Had Mbeki provided the proper drugs it is estimated that 365,000 premature deaths could have been prevented. Singer points out that Mbeki's intentions were never nefarious as he genuinely did believe in what he was saying, but in high stake situations such as these "the culpable failure, especially when lives are at stake, is not to disagree with scientists, but to reject science as a method of inquiry."

Today, it is the duty of our leaders to listen to experts and to allow for and examine all scientific evidence without fear or bias, because "the more responsibility we hold, the more tragic the consequences of making the wrong decision are likely to be."



I commented on these blog posts:
https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2020/05/an-epistemic-loneliness.html?showComment=1588717914206#c6015920815624507518

https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2020/05/jean-paul-sartre-existentialism-is.html?showComment=1588720188210#c2811266092870133066

I believe I have received 15 total runs since resuming the semester.
Section #6