Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rhys Southan's avatar

If you're going to go after Peter Singer's former metaethics, you might as well be clear about what those were and directly engage with the specific brand of non-cognitivism he accepted since the different versions of it have different problems. He accepted Hare's universal prescriptivism—something you kind of acknowledge when you say, "This is the view that moral statements function... as disguised imperatives, or something like that" and that "stealing is wrong" is similar to “Don’t steal!”

When you hone in on universal prescriptivism as Singer's metaethics, it's not surprising that he thought consistency mattered. For Hare, and previously Singer, moral claims are prescriptions which imply principles with consistency requirements. So, "don't steal" isn't just an isolated claim with no other implications. Supposedly "don't steal" implies a moral principle which those who say "don't steal" commit themselves to, and must follow to all its logical conclusions.

It's also not surprising that Singer's ethics were revisionary. "Famine, Affluence and Morality" and "Animal Liberation" both show how universal prescription can be revisionary. In "Famine, Affluence and Morality," Singer argues that we all accept that it is wrong to let a child drown in a shallow pond. He says there is a principle linked with this--"if you can prevent something bad from happening...." etc--and that this principle commits us to saving far away lives too.

In "Animal Liberation," Singer says most of us are against racism and sexism, and that the principle underlying this--supposedly the equal consideration of interests principle--commits us to anti-speciesism as well. So, universal prescriptivism can be revisionary by claiming that the seemingly non-controversial moral prescriptions we all make imply our commitment to principles which have radical implications when we follow them to their logical ends.

If we believe in universal prescriptivism, one way out of this is through what Hare called "fanaticism." Someone can say "actually I don't prescribe that we must save children from drowning in shallow ponds, so it is consistent for me not to donate to charities" or "actually I don't prescribe against racism, so it is consistent for me to be speciesist." When he was a universal prescriptivist, Singer would have nothing to say to fanatics like this, so long as they were being sincere.

You make a good point about morally relevant factors. For non-cognitivists, there are no factors which are objectively morally relevant. But I suppose Singer as universal prescriptivist would have tried to show that other prescriptions we make and thus principles we accept imply that distance is not morally relevant, or something like this, so it might still have been a coherent concept for him back them.

I don't know much about Singer's former Humeanism, so I don't know exactly how that fits in here. Maybe he thought our emotions guide which prescriptions we make and thus the principles we commit ourselves to. So, for someone to prescribe that it's wrong to be racist, and therefore commit themselves to anti-speciesism, they would first need to have an emotional reaction against racism. If they didn't have that emotional reaction, and thus didn't prescribe against racism, Singer would not have been able to commit them to anti-speciesism.

However, Humean Singer might only have needed emotions as a foothold into an initial prescription, which would then commit the prescriber into a principle which required them to behave in certain ways even when they didn't have the relevant emotions. In other words, universal prescriptivist Singer might not need the anti-racist to have an anti-speciesist feeling as well for them to be committed to anti-speciesism. The emotional feeling against racism commits someone to the equal consideration of interests principle, supposedly, which then logically commits them to anti-speciesism even if they don't have any negative feelings about animals being harmed. Then again, Singer as Humean should have recognized that even if you manage to logically commit an anti-racist to anti-speciesism, they aren't actually going to act on that commitment if they don't have a feeling motivating them to avoid harming animals. And, again, I'm just speculating because I'm not very familiar with what Humeanism meant to Singer.

Universal prescriptivism is false, so Singer was right to abandon it. However, it's interesting that he hasn't formally disavowed his previous arguments in Famine, Affluence and Morality and Animal Liberation which clearly rest on universal prescriptivist foundations. If it is wrong to exploit animals and wrong to let faraway children suffer, this is not because of our prescriptions which imply principles which we commit ourselves to and must follow to their logical conclusions. Singer needs to make new arguments now.

Expand full comment
Peter Gerdes's avatar

I'm not sure I'm convinced of the tension. It seems to require that we identify my emotional attitude about something with my immediate gut level emotional response.

I mean I often have feelings about my feelings. For instance, I might feel that it would be desierable for me to like Shakespeare more and marvel movies or porn less (I don't but someone might). Indeed, I might feel that strongly enough that I actually do watch more plays by Shakespeare and less marvel movies even though the immediate emotional reaction I feel in response to those viewings doesn't change. I don't think that is somehow in tension with me being a non-cognitivist analog about the value of art..it just requires that we don't identify my emotional reaction with my immediate emotional reaction (it includes feelings as the result of meta-cognition as well).

Seems like a similar kind of thing resolves the tension with Singer. Sure, he may not have the same immediate reaction to not donating as he does to murder but I don't see why that immediate reaction is the right thing to look at (his feeling that it's better to treat them simarly is also part of his emotional attitude).

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts