Comparison of bioethical views in the work of Peter Singer and in ethics of social consequences

Marián Ambrozy

doi:10.21638/spbu17.2022.401

Authors

Marián Ambrozy College of International Business ISM Slovakia in Prešov, 1, Duchnovič Square, Prešov, 080 01, Slovakia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2022.401

Abstract

The present paper compares the ethics of Peter Singer and the ethics of social consequences in bioethics. As part of the discussion on the ethics of social consequences, attention is mainly focused on the theory of its founder, Vasil Gluchman, and the works of his selected students. First, the selected bioethical views of Peter Singer are analyzed, and his ethics of preference utilitarianism are presented through the prism of his understanding of the person. In this sense, Singer’s view on the issues of abortion and infanticide is presented. Furthermore, the study deals with Singer’s views on the killing of animals and people regarding his criticism of speciesism and his prioritization of the preference criterion. Attention is also paid to Singer’s view on euthanasia. The study also presents the bioethical views of representatives of the ethics of social consequences, namely non-utilitarian consequentialism. It focuses on the question of to what extent genetics, according to Gluchman, determines morality and whether the protection of life is an absolute value for the ethics of social consequences. The paper also analyzes the abortion issue from the point of view of the ethics of social consequences. Selected bioethical attitudes of the ethics of social consequences proponents are also presented to compare the two concepts and determine the ontological fundaments on which Singer relies. Furthermore, the paper discusses Singer’s concept of the person, claiming that the ethics of social consequences argues for human dignity and positive social consequences for humans. Singer does not work with the concept of human dignity. In the paper, preference utilitarianism is not considered a hybrid ethical theory, unlike the ethics of social consequences. Preference utilitarianism and ethics of social consequences accept abortion and euthanasia in particular cases. The ethics of social consequences accepts them only if life contradicts human dignity, and preferential utilitarianism if it aligns with the person’s preferences or if it is not a person. Gluchman admits the solutions above as altruistic help to the suffering person. However, the ethics of social consequences does not consider the animal a person, nor does it condone infanticide, as does preference utilitarianism.

Keywords:

preference utilitarianism, ethics of social consequences, bioethics,, person, humanity, protection of life

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

References

Singer, P. (2011), Practical Ethics, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grunfeld, G.B. (1989), Infanticide in History, Hastings Center Report, vol. 19, iss. 5, pp. 48–48.

Singer, P. (2013), Discussing infanticide, Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 39, iss. 5, pp. 260.

Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. (1985), Should the Baby Live?: Problem of Handicapped Infants (Studies in Bioethics), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnson McBryde, H. (2006), Too Late to Die Young: Nearly True Tales from a Life, New York: Henry Holt and Co.

Hopwood, M. (2016), “Terrible Purity”: Peter Singer, Harriet McBryde Johnson, and the Moral Significance of the Particular, Journal of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 2, iss. 4, pp. 636–655.

Sýkora, P. (2013), Singerova britva, druhizmus a výnimočné postavenie človeka vo vesmíre, Filosofický časopis, roč. 61, vyd. 3, pp. 415–426.

De Oliveira, W.F. and Pereira, C.D. (2020), The relation between the principle of non-maleficence and militarism in Peter Singer’s ethics, Aufklarung — Revista de Filosofia, vol. 7, iss. 3, pp. 111–132.

Allegri, F. (2017), Peter Singer and the Moral Status of Animals. A Critical Assessment, Ragion Practica, no. 1, pp. 117–140.

Marco, M. S.I. (2016), A critic on the ideas in Peter Singer´s “Animal Liberation”, Torre del Virrey — Revista de Estudios Culturales, no. 19, pp. 82–102.

Tillman, R. (2013), Ethical embodiment and moral reasoning: A challenge to Peter Singer, Hypatia — A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, vol. 28, iss. 1, pp. 18–31.

Singer, P. (1983), Non-intervention in children with major disabilities, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 19 (4), pp. 215–216.

Venkataraman, P. and Kalita, T. (2014), Extending the moral standing: An evaluation of Peter Singer’s position, Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, vol. 22 SI, pp. 127–138.

Singer, P. (2018), The challenge of brain death for the sanctity of life ethics, Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe), vol. 8 (3–4), pp. 153–165.

Singer, P. (2019), Brain death: A response to the commentaries, Ethics and Bioethics (Central Europe), vol. 9 (1–2), pp. 81–85.

Cordero, D.A. (2019), Free and creative communal compassion: Reconstructing a contextualized Filipino ethics of sexuality, Philosophia (Philippines), vol. 20, iss. 1, pp. 19–38.

Pazdera, M. (2019), Etika sociálnych dôsledkov a evolučná ontológia v súčasnom eko-etickom diskurze, Pro-Fil, vol. 20, iss.1, pp. 45–64.

Gluchman, V. (1999), Etika sociálnych dôsledkov v kontexte jej kritiky, Prešov: L.I.M

Petrufová Joppová, M. (2018), Spinozian consequentialism of ethics of social consequences, Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe), vol. 8 (1–2), pp. 41–50.

Gluchman, V. (2003), Biologické a sociálne v etike sociálnych dôsledkov (o determinácii a slobode vôle, respektíve mravnej slobode), Filozofia, vol. 58, iss. 2, pp. 119–137.

Sucharek, P. (2017), Zmierenie nie je odpustenie. Chvála odpustenia, Filozofia, roč. 72 (6), pp. 417–428.

Gluchman, V. (2005a), Miesto humánnosti v etike sociálnych dôsledkov, Filozofia, roč. 60 (8), pp. 613–623.

Gluchman, V. (2017), Nature of dignity and human dignity, Human Affairs, vol. 27, iss. 2, pp. 131–144.

Gluchman, V. (2005b), Idea humánnosti v kontextoch súčasnej etiky, Filozofia, roč. 60 (7), pp. 512–531.

Gluchman, V. (2016), Disaster issues in non-utilitarian consequentialism (Ethics of social consequences), Human Affairs, vol. 26, iss. 1, pp. 52–62.

Gluchman, V. (2004), Ľudská dôstojnosť a neutilitaristická konzekvencialistická etika sociálnych dôsledkov, Filozofia, roč. 59 (7), pp. 502–507.

Bílá, M., Kačmárová, A. and Vaňková, I. (2015), Adopting cross-disciplinary perspectives in constructing a multilingual’s ethics, Human Affairs, vol. 25, iss. 4, pp. 430–442.

Kalajtzidis, J. (2018), The challenge of death and ethics of social consequences: Death of moral agency, Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe), vol. 8 (3–4), pp. 209–218.

Lešková Blahová, A. (2010), Bioetika v kontexte etiky sociálnych dôsledkov, Prešov: Prešovská Univerzita.

Gianan, N.A. (2017), Reinvestigating moral bio enhancement, Philosophia (Philippines), vol. 18, no. (2), pp. 158–171.

Komenská. K. (2014), Etika vzťahu k zvieratám (cez optiku etiky sociálnych dôsledkov), Prešov: Prešovská Univerzita

Kalajtzidis, J. (2019), Ethics of Social Consequences as a Hybrid Form of Ethical Theory?, Philosophia (United States), vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 705–722.

Švaňa, L. (2018), Critical review of theory and practice in ethics of social consequences, Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe), vol. 8 (1–2), pp. 139–147.

Volek, P. (2012), Personálna identita v preferenčnom utilitarizme Petra Singera, Filosofický časopis, roč. 60, vyd. 2, pp. 191–203.

Gluchman, V. (1999), Hodnotová štruktúra neutilitaristického konzekvencionalizmu, Filozofia, roč. 54 (7), pp. 483–493.

Polomská, J. (2018), Human dignity within ethics of social consequences, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Benatar, D. (2020), Famine, affluence, and Procreation: Peter Singer and anti-natalism lite, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 23, iss. 2, pp. 415–431.

Villanueva, G. (2018), Against animal liberation? Peter Singer and his critics, Sophia, vol. 57, iss. 1, pp. 5–19.

Jemelka, P. (2016), Environmentální etika, etika sociálních důsledků a evoluční ontologie, Studia Philosophica, vol. 63 (1), pp. 69–83.

Komenská, K. (2018), Death, ethical judgments and dignity, Ethics and Bioethics (in Central Europe), vol. 8 (3–4), pp. 201–208.

Máhrik, T., Vasbieva, D.G., Králik, R. and Kondrla, P. (2020), Salvation as the teleological vector in Kierkegaard’s Practice in Christianity, European Journal of Science and Theology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 43–52.

Máhrik, T. (2018), Truth as the key metaethical category in Kierkegaard,XLinguae, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 40–48.

Tománek, P., Valčová, K., Paľa, G., Babieva, N. S., Kryukova, N.I. and Vasbieva, D.G. (2019), Abortion and Euthanasia as Threats to Traditional Family: A Comparative Case Study on Slovakia and the Russian Federation, European Journal of Science and Theology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 61–73.

Nguyen, T.T., Truong, Q.T.T., Valčo, M., Khvatova, M.A. and Tyazhelnikov, A.A. (2020), Christian Theological Views on Industrial Revolutions and Related Ethical Challenges: A Western (And a Global) Perspective, Bogoslovni Vestnik, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 177–188.