January 22, 2013

Peter Singer's Flawed Logic on Ethics

There is no rest, no peace for the wicked. But a person with a clean conscience can sleep like a baby. Is there any objective basis for moral right and wrong, or are pangs of the conscience based on a completely subjective morality? One expert on secular morality, Sam Harris argues there is such an objective basis, while another expert on secular morality, Peter Singer argues that there is no such basis. According to the rules of logic, only one of these secular experts can be correct on this issue.
I believe Sam Harris has the right premise but offers the wrong basis for his conclusion, while Singer offers incorrect premises and also the wrong conclusion. I'll demonstrate how Singer's basic logic is flawed and why people who embrace basic concepts regarding human dignity need not be overly concerned that Singer has offered anything substantial as an argument.

The 'logic' of Peter Singer's ethics is outlined in his book Practical Ethics:

"In their denial of a realm of ethical facts that is part of the real world, existing quite independently of us, they are no doubt correct; but does it follow from this that ethical judgments are immune from criticism, that there is no role for reason or argument in ethics, and that, from the standpoint of reason, any ethical judgment is as good as any other? I do not think it does....

The issue of the role that reason can play in ethics is the crucial point raised by the claim that ethics is subjective. The non-existence of a mysterious realm of objective ethical facts does not imply the non-existence of ethical reasoning. It may even help, since if we could arrive at ethical judgments only by intuiting these strange ethical facts, ethical argument would be more difficult still. So what has to be shown to put practical ethics on a sound basis is that ethical reasoning is possible. [Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, p. 7.]

Notice how Singer implies that his ethical reasoning is objectively valid and his reason for making this assumption:

"The issue of the role that reason can play in ethics is the crucial point raised by the claim that ethics is subjective. The non-existence of a mysterious realm of objective ethical facts does not imply the non-existence of [objectively valid] ethical reasoning." (emphasis added)

Singer counters implied weakness, "the claim that [secular] ethics is subjective" with implied strength, that secular "ethical reasoning" is supposedly logically framed and sound. The problem is that Singer does not offer anything in the way of logical intellectual rigor in support of his positions. Grandiose philosophical posturing without the use of objective logical principles is tantamount to the kind of "mumbo jumbo" that he associates with religion. His condition is worse, however, in that he is pretending to offer sound reasoning when in reality it is nothing more than sophistry. If someone can post a link to any rigorous logical argument offered by Singer that incorporates succinct premises in a logical syntax with a compelling conclusion, do post a link.

A summary of Singer's flawed logic on ethics:

1. According to Peter Singer, there is no basis for objective ethical facts.
2.  Singer does not qualify his ethics as though they are suitable only for a certain culture or for a certain era of history. 
3. Void of any objective ethical facts, Singer claims that his ethical reasoning is valid for all.
4.  Singer claims that the theist basis of morality is "mumbo jumbo" that should be disregarded off hand.
5. An obstacle to point 4 is William Lane Craig, a theist who has been basically defeating all of his atheist opponents not with the Bible, but with logical principles alone.
6. Craig presents his arguments for God in a rigorous format using succinct premises in a  logical syntax in order to support the existence of God.
7. Singer does not present his arguments in any rigorous format using succinct principles in a logical syntax.
8. Therefore, based on 1 - 7, there is no reason why the views of Peter Singer should be regarded as reliable.

When the philosophical basis of Singer's views are analyzed, it is shown that the basis of his views are highly subjective. The 'role of secular reason' in Singer's view is the great hope, the great mechanism that is supposed to produce valid ethical rules for all of society. But the 'role of secular reason' is a ball of wax loaded with unsubstantiated philosophical assumptions, a main assumption being the assumption of atheism. The assumption that secular atheistic reason alone is adequate to produce a valid moral code has never been proven out in any historic society. The assumption today in academia is based merely on assumed atheist hegemony in academia. I would no more trust a group of secular scholars left alone to create a valid system of ethics than I would trust big government left alone to produce a healthy and smooth-running society. Actually, I would expect the opposite. I would expect self interest, greed and personal ideals to creep in and corrupt the system in favor of privileged insiders. And the presumption that secular reason is somehow stronger or more logical than reasoning by theists is simply false, based on real-life examples today. The opposite is shown to be the case. William Lane Craig, a theist, has repeatedly won debates against the leading secular atheist thinkers in society, and their excuses for not debating him are simply ridiculous. Perhaps Singer should challenge WL Craig to a debate in order to try and prop up his argument a bit. Or locate a secular atheist able to successfully challenge William Lane Craig.
 
It's not difficult to show that Singer's premises and the conclusion are false. What keeps him in authority at Princeton s simply the secular atheist hegemony in academia today. One doesn't even need to bring up theistic issues in order to demonstrate the fallacies of Singer's logic, it is is fairly rudimentary.

First, Singer questions why ethics should be considered "subjective" simply because "ethical facts" may not exist. Then he implies that his "ethical reasoning" can be considered valid, even without objective ethical facts. And by implying that his ethical principles are suitable for society at large, Singer is confirming his belief that his ethical principles are objectively valid. In none of the transcribed interviews and essays I've seen has there ever been any hint that Singer qualifies his ethics as though they are suitable only for a certain culture or for a certain era of history. This implies his belief that they are valid for society in general, simply because he believes his ideas are based on his supposedly "sound" secular reasoning.

However, if as Singer claims, there is no basis for objective ethical facts, then there is no logical bridge from "is" to "ought" as many philosophers have already pointed out. That is the crucial logical bridge that Singer has failed to cross. If Singer's secular ethical reasoning is not based on objective ethical facts, then it is subjective, not objective. And, logically, it can never and will never arrive at valid and objective ethical conclusions. Premise 2 is false. To pretend otherwise is simply a case of denial.

Sam Harris approached the question of secular ethics based on a presupposition that there needs to be some kind of basic objective ethical facts, ethical anchors to which ethical premises and conclusions may be attached. Harris, however, incorrectly believes that science alone can elucidate this. Singer, on the the other hand, never proposes that there are any objective ethical anchors, nor need be. Singer tacitly admits his opinion that "objective ethical facts" do not exist, but he is still unwilling to admit the bridge from "is" to "ought" cannot be crossed. Instead of crossing one big bridge, he attempts to break issues down into a few smaller bridges that he believes together will make one composite bridge. But this is a logical fallacy, as I'll show.

Because Singer offers no objective moral anchor, he is essentially using what William Lane Craig describes as a "shopping list" approach to ethics. Singer has come up with a subjective list of criteria that he believes work together to form some type of valid approach towards ethical conclusions. One criterion focuses on the question of whether there is any interest in the person's life. A second criterion regards any evidence of a strong desire to live. A third issue focuses on whether or not a being is able to project desires into the distant future. And then there is the issue of illness. So, these are Singer's little ethical bridges:

1. A being that no one is interested in is not, or may not be, a person.
2. A being that does not demonstrate a strong desire to live is not, or may not be, a person.
3. A being that cannot project into the distant future is not, or may not be, a person.
4. A being that is very ill is not, or may not be, a person.

Now, according to our understanding of Singer's views, a being that demonstrates all of the above characteristics is most definitely not a person. However, though the opinion is based on many observable facts, the types of facts observed have not been ethical facts, and the primary logical problem still remains for Singer. He is pretending that there is an objective ethical conclusion based on subjective ethical facts. That phrase, "subjective fact" is an oxymoron. One, two, or even four "subjective facts" together do not constitute an objective fact. Singer's ethical framework is merely a house of cards with no foundation in objective reality, at least as far as ethics is concerned.

Singer has claimed that the concept of sacred life is invalid and is pretending to offer a valid ethical solution in place of this ethical concept, and he has failed to do so. Singer is hailed as a distinguished  Ira W. DeCamp professor who embraces reason.  However, as is the case with Richard Dawkins and other notable atheist scholars, Singer seems to rely more on ethos-based rhetoric than logos-based rhetoric.

1. Sound reasoning must be based on sound, objective facts.
2. Peter Singer has offered no objective ethical facts or basis for such.
3. Therefore, Peter Singer has not offered any basis for sound ethical reasoning.
 
Singer offers, “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.” The existence of God, as logically outlined by theologians and philosophers, has served as a reference point of moral and ethical truth for Western civilization and for human exceptionalism. Singer offers no logical argument to support his view but merely derides the ethics of Western civilization as a "notion" not grounded in any ethical facts. Apparently, Singer has never debated William Lane Craig on this subject, and I seriously doubt that Singer would be in a rush to do so, as has been the case with Richard Dawkins and others, 'top' atheist apologists take flight and run in the opposite direction. In any event, now Singer must set out to define what a viable person is, as noted in a Singer FAQ

"I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future."

Singer does not explain why we should accept his personal definition of a person as an objective universal definition. But, for the sake of argument, let's consider it.

According to Singer's definition, a newborn baby is not a person because it has not yet developed conscious "wants and desires" for the future. This is one of the characteristics Singer uses to try and justify infanticide, the killing of newly born children. Singer goes on to say, "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." And then Singer, perhaps understanding the implications of what he is writing, states, "That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do." (emphasis added) But notice that Singer's word "terrible" does not equal "immoral" or "unethical" - it's just terrible. I suppose the use of the word terrible here might be akin to "emotionally very difficult." 

Take note that Singer is basing his ethical code on whether or not a person can intellectually want to go on living to Singer's satisfaction. How should we objectively define just how much "want" is enough in order for a being to be viably human?  How strong a desire or how many quantifiable  "desires for the future" are enough to qualify as a viable living being worth saving? A young child that is ill, or a little slow to develop, or does not have much of a passion for life, may not be able to demonstrate its worth and value quickly enough for Singer. Both the criteria and the evaluation of the criteria are found to be subjective, not objective, in Singer's ethical framework. 

This is, of course, is a classic example of utilitarian values in action. And, as usual, the main problem with utilitarianism is, "Who gets to decide what the greater good entails?"As I've pointed out in other articles, secularist academicians tend to shun logical principles when they address philosophical questions, while at the same time boasting of their "reason" and ability to arrive at "sound" decisions. In defense of Singer, a commenter at an Amazon book review wrote the following:

"Persons who become non-persons (through disease, accident, etc.), i.e. lose their self-awareness, autonomy, self-consciousness, use of their cerebral coretex, etc., lose their capacity for having interests (as Singer argues that interests are a factor of self-awareness, autonomy, etc.). However, and this is what many deliberately overlook, persons may have in interest in the welfare and survival of non-persons. Singer obviously had a desire to keep his mother, whom he loved, alive."

As it turns out, Singer's mother was overcome by Alzheimer's disease and apparently Singer decided not to end her life mainly because of the ethical value attributed by Singer's interest in his mother. The obvious question is, "What if someone is very ill and has no friends? Does that then mean such a person has no value?" That is precisely what it implies. Attempting to base "sound" ethics on subjective "wants" and "desires" and "interests" is about as weak a foundation as one could possibly hope for.
 
With regard to ethics, Singer's premises and basic conclusions are logically flawed and the results lead to a "terrible thing" according to Singer's own words. It was truly a sad day when Princeton University hired Peter Singer as a professor. Princeton (first called the College of New Jersey) was founded by Presbyterians in 1746 in order to train Christian ministers. Now it trains students in the art of poorly justifying murder and bestiality. While Singer has a difficult time offering logical arguments for his views, William Lane Craig has outlined sound evidence and arguments that demonstrate objective moral values do exist and how this logically points to God's existence. The sad irony of "secular humanism" is that it produces a dehumanized society. Because society is increasingly embracing dehumanizing views on ethics and morality today, I believe that we see very little hope for a just and humane society in our time without a spiritual revival or spiritual intervention of some sort.

Tags: summary of Peter Singer's logical flaws, Peter Singer moral relativist, singer on objective ethical facts, objective versus subjective morality, shopping list secular ethics, Peter Singer quotes on ethics, Singer's criteria for a valid person

Related Posts:

Peter Singer's Infanticide at Princeton University

Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague

Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life


(revised 03/23/16)

Related:

19 comments:

  1. "The issue of the role that reason can play in ethics is the crucial point raised by the claim that ethics is subjective. The non-existence of a mysterious realm of objective ethical facts does not imply the non-existence of [objectively valid] ethical reasoning." (emphasis added)


    Not just *emphasis*, but a word was added, Rick; talk about creating a straw man. You don't argue against what Singer said, but what you feel he implied (in your premise #2.)

    There's a lot more to argue with here, but I know you won't engage with me; I'm just going to point out how you are putting words in Singer's mouth to make your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Imnotandrei is apparently unaware that Singer's ethical propositions are intended for application to society at large. This implies that Singer believes his ethical principles are 'objectively valid' for society. Thus, confirming this characteristic is in no way "creating a straw man." It is simply implicit in his logic:

    A summary of Singer's logic on ethics:

    1. No basis for objective ethical facts exists.
    2. Nevertheless, void of objective ethical facts, valid secular ethical reasoning is still possible.
    3. Singer's ethical ideas are implicitly offered as 'objectively valid' principles for society at large.
    4. Therefore, it is implied that 'objectively valid' ethical principles can be derived without initial objective ethical facts.

    If there are any atheists who would like to debate this issue on a civilized level, without resorting to slander and ad hom attacks, I would welcome it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick, are you aware that Singer is a utilitarian regarding ethics, and utilitarian ethics are objective?

      Singer doesn't think there is some other realm of objective moral facts (such as moral Platonism holds), but rather that the ethical facts are empirical in nature.

      In fact, Harris' own ethical system is utilitarian, as it aims to maximise human flourishing (Singer's own utilitarianism is, according to wikipedia Preference Utilitarianism.

      Delete
    2. Also note that Singer (and Harris) actually have a set objective fact to refer to in their system of morality.

      You on the other hand Rick, have no demonstrated objective basis for your moral framework.

      People in glass houses, and all that :-)

      Delete
    3. Havok enjoys flitting around blogs offering challenges, while all the while proving himself to be unwilling to engage in such challenges in a civilized manner.


      Beginning in December 2011, a blogger named Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He is still unable to validate his slander with any comments made prior to December 7, 2011.



      With regard to the question of slander and Internet etiquette, most commenters seem to believe that ignoring a person who slanders is probably the best solution


      If any civilized individual would like to discuss or debate the subject of objective morality I would be more than happy to.

      Delete
    4. As usual Rick, instead of trying to engage in any sort of dialogue, or address the faults of your arguments and claims, you attempt to deflect attention onto something which is unrelated.

      Delete
  3. Note: Blog commenter Atheist Anonymous (AA) has also claimed I am offering a "straw man" argument in outlining Singer's position on ethics (in addition to repeatedly calling me a liar with respect to this issue), however, when asked to present a single specific point he disagrees with, AA's answer is,

    "I did not read any books or aticles from Singer besides his FAQ, so I am ill-equiped for a debate..."

    http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/huge-public-response-for-waiter-who.html?showComment=1359029562126#c399057783537423757

    In other words, I am wrong and a "liar" for outlining Singer's basic positions, however, AA cannot explain why my logic is flawed and uses his own ignorance as a basis for justifying his inability to point out where the alleged flaw is. Nice.

    For added clarification, I've added the small detail in premise 4.

    A summary of Singer's flawed logic on ethics:

    1. No basis for objective ethical facts exists.
    2. Nevertheless, void of objective ethical facts, valid secular ethical reasoning is still possible.
    3. Singer's ethical ideas are implicitly offered as 'objectively valid' principles for society at large.
    4. Singer does not qualify his ethics as though they are suitable only for a certain culture or for a certain era of history.
    5. Therefore, Singer implies that 'objectively valid' ethical principles can be derived without initial objective ethical facts.

    If it is possible for any secular atheists to point out why they believe any premises here are not correct, that would be nice. Name calling does not seem to be a very strong argument in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you are a repugnant liar. You lied and still lie about Singer promoting bestiality and infanticide. I stand by my words, Rick.

      And I already told you I do not have any intentions of reading in details the works of Singer since I am not interested in him just to make a futile attempt to reason with you.

      Delete
    2. >Yes, you are a repugnant liar. You lied and still lie about Singer promoting bestiality and infanticide. I stand by my words, Rick.

      - No, I pointed out where Singer explicitly states it is less "wrong" to kill certain types of infants.

      Read a quote by Singer:

      "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do."

      - Singer calls it terrible, not immoral. Where does Singer ever claim that infanticide of "non-persons" is immoral?

      He offers the opposite, that it is emotionally difficult but ethically acceptable because these beings do not qualify as valid persons in his opinion. You do not seem to understand Singer's views at all on a very basic level. Before you begin calling people liars you should probably do a little research on basic positions.

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/huge-public-response-for-waiter-who.html?showComment=1359030840444#c4586194719483494507

      Again, if there are any atheists out there who can point out an actual premise that they believe is false, I would welcome it:

      A summary of Singer's flawed logic on ethics:

      1. No basis for objective ethical facts exists.
      2. Nevertheless, void of objective ethical facts, valid secular ethical reasoning is still possible.
      3. Singer's ethical ideas are implicitly offered as 'objectively valid' principles for society at large.
      4. Singer does not qualify his ethics as though they are suitable only for a certain culture or for a certain era of history.
      5. Therefore, Singer implies that 'objectively valid' ethical principles can be derived without initial objective ethical facts.

      So far, all we have is a lot of name calling.

      Delete
    3. R:No, I pointed out where Singer explicitly states it is less "wrong" to kill certain types of infants.

      I will repeat my same post from before:

      Yes and that is not the same thing as promoting infanticide. Therefore, you are a liar.

      R:Singer calls it terrible, not immoral. Where does Singer ever claim that infanticide of "non-persons" is immoral?

      Again, I will have to repeat myself:

      Great, now you nitpick with words, terrible = wrong in that context. Would the word "wrong" be acceptable to you since morality is about the right and wrong choices? And here is another quote if you are not satisfied with the obvious one:

      "It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be WRONG to kill it."

      So...On one hand we have the delusional reasoning of Rick accusing Singer of promoting infanticide and the words of the man himself thaty it would be wrong to kill a baby...

      Delete
    4. R:Before you begin calling people liars you should probably do a little research on basic positions

      If you DID not have a reading disability and if you DID read my replies to you, my life would be much easier.

      Delete
    5. You are offering your erroneous comments and slander all over this blog, so I guess I will have to re-post the same points here at this post.

      You wrote, "terrible = wrong in that context."

      No, Singer is not offering this cut and dry definition. You are wrong.

      Singer has plainly stated that infanticide is less wrong than other alternatives. And his position may be considered promotion of infanticide because he is advocating it as a morally viable choice.

      1. Singer is pro-choice on infanticide.

      2. Theists believe infanticide is immoral.

      3. Therefore, Singer is advocating, promoting what others consider immoral.

      Why do you continue to deny this? Ultimately Singer evaluates infanticide along the same lines as abortion. Do you deny that pro-choice abortionists promote abortion as a viable moral choice?

      1. Pro-choice abortion advocates offer that abortion is a valid moral choice.

      2. Therefore, pro-choice abortion advocates promote abortion for certain circumstances.

      Next

      1. Peter Singer advocates choice in infanticide using the same principles he uses for advocating choice in abortion.

      2. Therefore, Peter Singer is pro-choice for infanticide.

      3. Advocating a pro-choice position means promoting a morally acceptable choice.

      4. Therefore, Singer promotes infanticide as what he considers to be morally acceptable choice.

      If you doubt that Singer is pro-choice on infanticide, you should read up on it:

      http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

      Delete
    6. R:You are offering your erroneous comments and slander all over this blog, so I guess I will have to re-post the same points here at this post.

      You are the one who ignored my comments on this thread and moved the discussion to another.

      R:You wrote, "terrible = wrong in that context."
      No, Singer is not offering this cut and dry definition. You are wrong.

      Yep, let us ignore the second quote from Singer where your lie is even more obvious. The one where he specifically says that it would be WRONG to kill a baby.

      R:And his position may be considered promotion of infanticide because he is advocating it as a morally viable choice.

      Liar. He does not promote infanticide. You dishonestly corrolate infanticide and euthanasia. That is not the same thing.

      R:Why do you continue to deny this?

      Rick, do you know the difference between euthanasia and infanticide? Do you know the difference between murder and abortion?

      Delete
    7. >Liar. He does not promote infanticide. You dishonestly corrolate infanticide and euthanasia. That is not the same thing.

      - Let's look at definitons and then Singer's quotes.

      1. Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.

      2. Infanticide (or infant homicide) is the intentional killing of infants.

      3. Definition of infant: : a child in the first period of life

      Let's look at Singer's words:

      "Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely."

      http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html

      In what manner does"taking active steps" to take the life of a "baby" not correspond to infanticide? Euthanasia is simply a broader definition of the same act that is not limited to infants but applies to all humans.

      Not only does Singer believe it is moral, he calls infanticide humane.

      Your denial is quite strong on this issue. Perhaps this is another good subject for an article.

      Delete
    8. R:In what manner does"taking active steps" to take the life of a "baby" not correspond to infanticide? Euthanasia is simply a broader definition of the same act that is not limited to infants but applies to all humans.

      Alright, let me rephrase the question so even you can understand it:

      Do you understand the difference between child euthanasia and infanticide? Do you understand the difference between abortion and murder?

      Delete
    9. So long as biblegod commands it, then it's ok to kill babies in the xian view...yet they pretend to be pro-life

      Delete
    10. - Your quote does not offer any context so it's I'm not sure where you are coming from with it.

      Delete
    11. It wasn't a quote. It was a referral; one that you apparently didn't get. Hint: William Lane Craig.

      As to "where I'm going with it"? It's the idea that you xians keep claiming to be "pro-life" while looking down on others who disagree with you, when in actuality you are not as "pro-life" as you pretend to be.

      In other words: Not even Peter Sanger would advocate the kind of slaughter that William Craig does; only Craig has no problem with babies and pregnant women being killed when it's "god" that orders it.

      Delete
    12. Reynold, Your question can be approached as follows: If God created the universe and everything in it, does God have the right to give and take life? What is your opinion on this and why do you hold it? Can you explain your perspective?

      Delete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!