Just Finished Reading: How are we to live? – Ethics in an age of self-interest by Peter Singer (FP: 1993)

As is often the case with works of philosophy this book is difficult to summarise in a few paragraphs. I suppose that in many ways that’s a good thing. It shows that the author takes ethics seriously enough not to offer simple and inevitably simplistic answers to how we should live in the 21^st century. Written before the recent economic collapse brought about largely by an irresponsible banking system it seemed positively prescient at times by pointing out the driving greed that seems to pervade every aspect of western capitalism. Greed may no longer be good in the Gordon Gecko sense but it’s still a powerful (if not overwhelming) force to be reckoned with. I’m guessing that Singer would have been gratified by the level of outrage and disgust aimed at those rich and shameless speculators who got us in this mess. But why should they have acted any differently? What’s wrong with the starting point of asking ‘What’s in it for me?’

American readers in particular – even the more liberal amongst them – will probably take exception to the United States being used as an example of how not to run a civilisation. The author basically blames the US for introducing and promoting the ‘Me’ Generation that appears to be running and ruining the planet. I thought he laid this on a bit too thick and bordered on being boring at times. Although American is the de facto cheerleader of Capitalism the two are not wholly one and the same. But he certainly has a point. Capitalism may have produced wealth beyond the dreams of Kings gone by but at enormous cost elsewhere. This is the background against which the author asks the question: What can we do about it? Business as usual is not really an option. We living in a finite world – at least until we get off it in sufficient numbers – so we can’t all be avaricious all of the time. We need to moderate our behaviour – but why should we? What should motivate us to do so?

Rightly the author says that Christian ethics – the often unspoken baseline for over a thousand years in the west – just won’t do. We need something else, something new, something non or post Christian. Secular ethics is the new kid on the block and, the author contends, is still working out the wrinkles of its theories. But a lot of good work has been done in the areas of sociobiology, anthropology and genetics which can point us in the right direction. Work in the area of Game Theory can also give us ideas of where altruism comes from and why it can offer great advantages to those who practice it – and not only within their own kin groups. The most productive strategy is a simple one: Always open by giving and then respond in a tit-for-tat fashion. If the recipient gives back (or whatever is going on in the particular circumstances) then carry on giving. If the recipient does not respond in kind then do likewise the next time. Apparently it works and does so much better than anything else.

Without attempting to précis the entire book (in which case you would miss lots of detail and some fascinating personal insights) I found this to be a very stimulating read and much better than I had originally expected. Singer is an erudite philosopher who writes very well indeed. His arguments are forceful and, with a bit of effort on the part of his readers mind expanding. The basis of his ethical platform is a deceptively easy one – the alleviation of suffering. Anything that is likely to increase the general amount of suffering in the world is a bad thing and anything that reduces it is a good thing. It’s a simple idea that has profound consequences when you start thinking about it and acting on it. Of course nothing is quite as simple as that and conflicts will inevitably arise but I can certainly think of a worse purpose for living than the alleviation of pain and suffering. Recommended.