Philosopher Peter Singer on the Business of Doing Good in the World
While we’ve had many knowledgeable and distinguished guests over the five seasons of the podcast, few have been household names. That’s not the case with philosopher and author Peter Singer. One of the most influential thinkers of our time, he’s had a major impact on many of our other guests who are entrepreneurs working in the alternative meat industry.
Peter appeared in the third season of the podcast, speaking about how we can all maximize the impact of our positive actions, and in particular the effects that technology and entrepreneurship can have on the welfare of animals.
A Life Centered on Ethics
Born in Australia in 1946, Peter has spent a lifetime writing and pressing the case for ethical treatment of animals and the Earth. Peter’s parents were Jewish refugees from 1930s Vienna, who escaped after the Nazi Anschluss. After earning his undergraduate degree in Australia, Peter studied at Oxford University, becoming Radcliffe Lecturer in Philosophy after graduation. This was the time in his life when he began deeper reflection about the morality of eating animals, and he soon adopted a vegetarian lifestyle.
Peter gained worldwide attention for his 1975 book Animal Liberation, which outlined a “new ethics” for the way we should be treating animals. The book was a watershed in the development of the animal protection movement. Among other abuses, it outlined the tortures suffered by animals used in scientific experiments and in factory farming. Animal Liberation Now, Peter’s updated edition of this classic work reissued with an introduction by Yuval Noah Harari, is set for release in May 2023.
Against Speciesism, toward Effective Altruism will
One of Peter’s key points in Animal Liberation centered on the problem of speciesism. He wrote that every living being capable of feeling happiness and pain has the right to have its interests considered in any moral determination, regardless of his or her species. Back in Australia, Peter in 1983 took up his duties as director of the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University before moving on to Princeton University in 1999. He continues to serve as the school’s Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the Center for Human Values.
Over the years, Peter has contributed much of his own income to further the causes of animal and human rights and environmentalism. This commitment has been controversial, however, and we explored some of that in our podcast. Another of Peter’s key ideas in the field of ethics concerns “effective altruism,” a phrase coined by a group of Oxford philosophers based on his work. This is a practical approach to charitable giving that seeks to use reason to identify the most effective means of solving problems humanity faces regarding larger issues like poverty, hunger, and disease.
Among Peter’s more than 50 books is the 2009 title The Life You Can Save, which gave its name to a nonprofit he established to address the effects of global poverty.
Advances in Animal Welfare
Our conversation in the podcast of course turned to advances in animal welfare. There have been some improvements since the 1970s, but in many ways humans are inflicting vastly more suffering on animals today than 40 years ago.
In recent years, the European Union and certain United States jurisdictions have banned certain more restrictive types of animal confinement. Peter pointed to the effectiveness of citizen-led initiatives, such as California’s Proposition 2, passed in 2008 with more than 63 percent of the vote. When it took effect in 2015, the proposition made it illegal to confine calves raised for veal, laying hens, and pregnant sows in spaces that would not permit free movement. In states like Florida and Arizona, voters have moved to ban gestation crates confining pregnant animals.
While the percentage of the population in Western countries that now expresses interest in vegetarian diets has risen, the rate at which animals are slaughtered for food continue to rise, including in the US. This is particularly notable in countries like India and China, where emerging middle classes are demanding increasing amounts of meat products.
In this regard, Peter found it notable to mention fish as sentient beings who feel pain. He sees more awareness of that now, whereas in 1975 it was hard to elicit people’s empathy even for chickens. But today, even with the innovative products in the animal-free meat sector coming to market, fish continue to be consumed as food animals in the trillions, in far greater numbers than chickens.
Technology Can Support an Expansion of Ethics
It is notable that, as alternatives to cruel commercial practices become more affordable by the average person, habits can change. While he hopes that developing ethical perspectives will take the lead in driving anti-cruelty initiatives over the long term, Peter is encouraged by short-term developments allowing companies to offer meat and fish substitutes that don’t inflict pain.
We ended up agreeing that technological changes — exemplified by Susan B. Anthony’s argument that the bicycle helped the cause of women’s rights by making independent travel and work outside the home possible — often accelerate changes in moral perspective. Whaling didn’t die out because of empathy and ethical concern for whales, but rather because of the widespread availability of kerosene. Similarly, Peter hopes that technological innovations in clean meat will spur changes in humanity’s eating habits.
Emerging companies may stand the best chance of driving significant ethical changes. At the time, Eat Just was working with one of the biggest fast-food companies in China to replace the chicken eggs on its menu. This may be one of the biggest plant-based substitutions for a factory-farm product in human history. Peter believes that to make the most ethical decision regarding investing versus charitable giving, you need to know the odds of the start-up’s long-term success.
Our conversation also addressed the ethics of adoption versus procreating, the colonization of other planets, and when he feels he’s been wrong in the past. Peter concluded the conversation by saying he’s an optimist. If humans, with all our capacity for both good and bad behavior, can manage to survive while longer, we might just see our expansion of technology and innovation alleviate much of the suffering of both our fellow humans and our fellow animals.
So go check out this interview. I promise you’ll find it a worthwhile conversation.
