Peter Singer: The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.
“Ethics is inescapable” because human beings “find it impossible to prevent ourselves inwardly classifying actions as right or wrong,” no matter how hard some of us may try. This admitted, problems remain in “understanding the nature and origin” of ethical standards. Objective or subjective? Natural or conventional? Universal or ‘relative’ (to individuals, families, civil societies, regimes)?
Singer rejects God as the origin of ethical standards. If I say murder is wrong “only because God” said it is, the “God might just as easily have said: ‘Thou shalt kill.'” And if He did, “Would killing then have been right?” If you concur, that “makes morality too arbitrary; but to deny that it would have been right is to assume that there are standards of right and wrong independent of God’s will.” And if you say God is good, I reply that this “implies a standard of goodness that is independent of God’s decision.” Ah, but not so fast, Professor Singer. If one says God is good, and God is God—that is, the ultimate cause of all things, beyond human conventions, human nature and the whole of His creation—then His command is good. His will issues from His goodness and His goodness inheres in His being. Another way of putting this is to observe that every set of ethics has some source of what ‘the good’ is. It might be God, nature, ‘history,’ custom, but whatever it is, it is. If God is God, then if He’d said ‘Thou shalt kill,’ that would indeed have made it right. Indeed, He did indeed sentence all human beings to death.
But Singer wants to philosophize about ethics, to address ethical questions with reasonings ‘unaided’ by divine revelation, not to engage seriously in theology. More specifically, he wants to philosophize about the ethical claims made by the entomologist E. O. Wilson on behalf of ‘sociobiology,’ a subsection of biology that attempts to show the biological bases of human societies, in contradiction to the claim that human societies are entirely conventional. Against this, Singer proposes a rationalist ethics founded on historicist premises. His enterprise overlaps with Wilson’s insofar as both endorse evolutionism, the principal means of ‘historicizing’ nature. In order to do that, he needs (so to speak) to clear God and His revelation out of the way, however implausibly. So, then, what will his rationalist ethics be, and how will it answer the challenge of a biologist who denies that reason amounts to much when it comes to ethics?
Wilson rejects social contract theory, which holds that “our rules of right and wrong sprang from some distant Foundation Day on which previously independent rational human beings came together to hammer out a basis for setting up the first human society.” Supposedly, “we now know that we have lived in groups longer than we have been rational human beings.” This assumes that we were not social and rational at the same time, but Singer is willing to walk with Wilson this far, presumably on the further assumption that ‘we’ began as sub-rational but social hominids. (If ‘we’ began that way, then ‘we’ were not ‘us,’ yet, not real human beings, but again let that pass.)
“So what does sociobiology offer us in place of the historical myth of the social contract?” Since sociobiology accepts the survival of the fittest as the driving force of evolution, it must explain certain forms of social behavior that have endured and even advanced over time as fitter than others. The most obvious problem is altruism. Genes are passed from two individuals to one; only “if a gene leads individuals,” not groups or the species as a whole, “to have some feature which enhances their prospect of surviving and producing, that gene will itself survive into the next generation.” Would this not make individuals with ‘selfish’ genes much more likely to survive than individuals with unselfish, altruistic, especially self-sacrificing genes? (Not necessarily, one might think, inasmuch as heroes who survive their battles might be more attractive mates than cowards who survive those battles, but neither Wilson nor Singer takes that line.)
Sociobiologists explain altruism in natural-selection terms by examining kin altruism and reciprocal altruism. Kin altruism is seen in the fact that parents rate the protection and flourishing of their children higher than the protection and flourishing of other people’s children. (No doubt professors Wilson and Singer have seen this in the parents of their students.) Kin altruism is limited to the love of one’s own. A “genetically based tendency to help one’s relatives” makes evolutionary sense if parental self-sacrifice, and a lesser but still noticeable degree of self-sacrifice on behalf of more distant relatives, protects more individuals than the family loses as a result of self-sacrificial protective behavior. This doesn’t mean that kin altruism is rational or even intentional, only that animals “act roughly as if they were aware of these relationships.”
Reciprocal altruism, too, may well have evolutionary benefits. We see it in apes, who groom one another, relieving not only kin but members of their small societies of parasites. This gives an advantage to a group that engages in reciprocal grooming “over other groups who do not have any way of ridding themselves of parasites.” In periods of extraordinary stress on all the groups, the healthier and stronger group will more likely survive and prosper. Admittedly, “a group would have to keep itself distinct from other groups for group altruism to work”; indeed, it “would work best when coupled with a degree of hostility to outsiders,” which is exactly what we see in many kinds of social animals.
Why does any of this matter ethically? For starters, biological evidence shows that Hobbes was wrong about the state of nature as simply a condition of the war of all against all. Human social nature derives from pre-human ancestors. So does logos, or at least the potential for it; apes can learn words in sign language, and dogs can reason (the latter claim awaits a definition of ‘reason’). Although anthropologists correctly observe that ethical codes vary widely from one human society to the next, sociobiologists rejoin that “there are common elements underlying this diversity.” Kinship altruism in the form of mothers caring for children and fathers supporting and protecting families are universal, and attempts to abolish the family, Marxist or other, have failed. Such behavior means that human beings “are led by bonds of natural affection to do what would otherwise fall on the community itself and either would not be done at all or would require labor unmotivated by natural impulses”—an “expensive and impersonal bureaucracy,” in the instance of the modern state. And “the bond of reciprocity is almost as universal” among human beings as the kinship bond, also for reasons evolution can explain. I trust those who help me, and those who help me trust me if I reciprocate; such bonds strengthen the society in which we live, giving it an advantage over any society that fails to establish such bonds. Individuals who violate the bond of mutual trust and (in speaking, reasoning humans) “the concept of fairness” or justice that arises from it will incur revenge, and “personal resentment becomes moral indignation when it is shared by other members of a group and brought under a general principle.” Tribal blood feuds give way to impartial judicature—the theme of a Greek tragedy or two. And logos not only enables human beings to judge impartially but to honor and dishonor their fellows. “If I can talk…I can tell everyone else in the group what sort of person you are.”
Some of this isn’t altruism but “enlightened self-interest.” But some of it really is altruistic, “behavior which benefits others at some material cost to oneself” and “motivated by the desire to benefit others.” Still, “if one is more likely to be selected as a partner if one has genuine concern for others”—the ‘heroism’ example mentioned earlier, but not only heroism—then “there is an evolutionary advantage in having genuine concern for others,” although of course human beings will still need to separate false altruists from true, a task their ability to speak and to reason will sharpen on both sides of the ethical divide.
Finally, altruism in families and in social groups can rise to the level of political societies. “The group bias of our ethics in respect to loyalty to the group as a whole shows itself in the high praise we give to patriotism.” Some, including Diogenes the Cynic and some of the Stoics deprecate patriotism as “group selfishness,” avowing loyalty to “the world community.” “Yet patriotism has proved difficult to dislodge from its high place among the conventionally accepted virtues,” which may or may not (sociobiologists allow) mean it has a biological basis.
Singer cautions that “no ethical conclusions flow from these speculations” about “the origins of human ethics.” ‘Universal’ doesn’t mean ‘good’ and biological fact does not justify itself. There are many biological facts, many ills that flesh is heir to, that we seek to remediate or eliminate. He turns to an examination of Wilson’s claim that “sociobiological theories have great significance for ethics.”
Wilson argues that human self-knowledge “is constrained and shaped by the emotional control centers in the hypothalamus and limbic system of the brain.” Philosophers in fact “consult” their own emotions when they “wish to intuit the standards of good and evil.” In Singer’s paraphrase, “only by interpreting the activity of the emotive centers as a biological adaptation can the meaning of the [ethical] canons be deciphered,” according to sociobiologists. These standards do change as human societies change—a family hut calls for different behaviors than an urban apartment complex—and thus “no single set of moral standards is applicable either to all human populations” or even “to all the different age and sex groups within each population.” Wilson derives three moral conclusions from this mixture of biology and varying social circumstances: the natural law teaching about sexual behavior is wrong because reproduction isn’t “the primary role of sexual activity” and thus homosexuality and the use of contraceptives are licit; attempt to reform behaviors that are really natural (families, for example) will come at the cost of heavy regulation and cost; and a future sociobiologically-based ethics will promote the survival of the species by the preservation of human genes, diversity of the gene pool to avoid the ill effects of inbreeding, and promotion of the universal human rights, which supports the group membership human survival requires. Sociobiology can assist in the achievement of these ruling principles and practices by advancing “new knowledge about the consequences of our actions” (especially their evolutionary consequences), by undermining ethical beliefs that are unnatural, and possibly by “provid[ing] us with a new set of ethical premises or a reinterpretation of old ethical premises” that will replace evolutionarily harmful prejudices.
Singer demurs. “Philosophers working in ethics take little notice of genetics or evolutionary theory,” and rightly so, inasmuch as “the important philosophical questions—like ‘What is good?’—have to be answered before we can use information about the consequences of our actions in deciding what we ought to do.” “Information about the consequences of our actions does not tell us which consequences to value.” Is the human good utility? Liberty? Happiness? Or is Kant right in holding that morality has nothing to do with consequences at all? As an ethical ‘consequentialist’ himself, Singer rejects Kant’s categorical imperative and admits the need for gathering “the best information available” when one considers the means to achieve moral ends. But that doesn’t justify sociobiology’s “dramatic claims about explaining ethics ‘at all depths’ or fashioning a biology of ethics which will do away with the need for ethical philosophers.” (Perish that thought.)
If biology could discover a natural law undergirding ethics, that would have “an important effect” on philosophy. But “natural law systems of ethics are not widely held outside religious, and especially Roman Catholic circles,” and even if, say, homosexuality could be proved to be unnatural, “obviously there are many things, from curing diseases to using saccharin, that are unnatural but not therefore wrong.” Moreover, “far from justifying principles that are shown to be ‘natural,’ a biological explanation is often a way of debunking the lofty status of what seemed a self-evident moral law.” [1] Singer will return to the latter claim, which is based upon Hume’s distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought,’ but one might well linger on the slap at religion. Surely no philosopher could claim that ‘widely held’ claims somehow refute claims not widely held, simply because majority rule ought to prevail? Where would that leave ethical philosophers, whose direct influence on public opinion seems slight?
Concerning the pretension that science might itself provide a new or substantially reformed set of ethical principles, Singer appeals to Hume’s critique of what he calls “the naturalistic fallacy,” the attempt to “defin[e] values in terms of facts.” I can’t “convince people that, say, the survival of the human gene pool is a cardinal value” unless I give them a reason for thinking that it is. Science can’t tell me that. “Facts, by themselves, do not provide us reasons for actions,” although they do “tell me what my options are.” “No science is ever going to discover ethical premises inherent in our biological nature, because ethical premises are not the kind of thing discovered by scientific investigation.” Such premises are chosen, not discovered. “I, and not my genes, am making the decision.” “The mistake made by sociobiologists who think that their explanation of ethics can tell us what we ought to do parallels that of anthropologists who thought that the diversity of morals between societies implies that people ought to follow the moral code of their own society” or, one might add, that no moral code has any basis other than in what anthropologists call ‘culture.’
If so, then on what basis do I choose? It is undoubtedly true that modern science, which describes nature as non-teleological, can find no ethical commands in nature. But even if it cannot find commands in nature might nature not still provide moral guidance? If philosophic inquiry into ethics seeks the good for human beings, would human nature not indicate that good, even as it would tell us what the good is for a dog or for a plant? That is, if I say, ‘Good dog!’ I might mean that the dog is following my command; I would be commanding the dog in a way that might or might be naturally good for the dog. But I might rather be saying that the dog is a good specimen of a dog—healthy, evidently contented under ordinary conditions. Whether the dog ‘wants’ to be healthy and contented is irrelevant to determining whether it is a good dog, although I suppose one might argue that a dog that sought illness and discontent would be one sick puppy.
Singer makes a further argument about ethical choice itself. “Our ability to be a participant in a decision-making process, to reflect and to choose, is as much a fact about human nature as the effect of the limbic system on our emotions.” This does not imply that we “believe in a mysterious entity known as ‘I’ or ‘the self’ or ‘the will.'” Even if we had “a complete causal account of our behavior,” if “an observer could predict how we would choose,” we nonetheless “would be making genuine choices” because “the distinction between the standpoint of the observer and the standpoint of the participant is ineliminable.” That does not, however, authorize Heidegger and other ‘existentialist’ philosophers to claim that “our choice of ultimate values is simply a commitment, a ‘leap of faith,’ which is beyond any rational assessment, and thus ultimately arbitrary.” Otherwise, Heidegger’s leap of faith to Nazism would be no less justifiable than Sartre’s leap of faith when he resisted the Nazis or (one might well add) that Sartre’s leap of faith to socialist fellow-traveling with French Communism was as justifiable as some other existentialist’s leap of faith in opposing Communism. Leaps of faith might contradict one another, a point which brings the principle of noncontradiction, and therefore reasoning, into the picture. “Unless there is a rational component to ethics that we can use to defend at least one of our fundamental ethical principles, the free use of biological and cultural explanations would leave us in a state of deep moral subjectivism.” Whereas “Wilson’s statements about ethics leave him with no escape from ethical subjectivism, once the impossibility of deriving ethics from biology has been admitted,” it may be that ethical judgments do (might we say, ‘in fact’?) have “a rational component.” “The fact that we choose our ethical premises does not in itself imply that the choice is arbitrary.”
Unfortunately, Singer does not define reason as thought guided by the principle of noncontradiction. Instead, he defines it as a set of thoughts leading to unpredictable consequences—a process exemplified by the way counting leads to arithmetic. Nature ‘counts,’ in the other sense of the word: “Ethics starts with social animals prompted by their genes to help, and to refrain from injuring, selected other animals. On this base we must now superimpose the capacity to reason.” Kin and reciprocal altruism, discovered to be natural in human beings, becomes refined as language develops and “consciousness” strengthens and is refined. This brings “tremendous advantages in the evolutionary competition for survival” but it also, and crucially, brings with it “something which has not existed, so far as we can tell in any non-human society: the transformation of our evolved, genetically-based social practices into a system of rules and precepts guiding our conduct toward one another, supported by widely shared judgments of approval for those who do as the rules and precepts require, and disapproval for those who do not”—a “system of ethics or morality,” a standard “acceptable to the group as a whole.” Singer carefully refrains from saying that this acceptance itself makes the system right. Indeed, there can be “oppressive customs.” The “readiness with which we bring particular events under a general rule may be the most important difference between human and animal nature.” This suggests that reason, like emotions, is natural to human beings, and it further suggests, although Singer doesn’t say so, that there is such a thing as natural right, even if there is no natural law in the sense of a cosmic order from which human beings ought to take their ethical bearings.
Socrates shows how ethical reasoning can progress beyond custom. “By the standards of customary morality Socrates was corrupting the youth.” Guilty as charged. “Customary morality cannot stand the scrutiny of rational inquiry which questions the customary standards themselves,” assuming that the customary standards are self-contradictory. “The unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates says, because such a life coherently seeks the good only by accident, and therefore seldom finds or even seeks coherence. “Few of us examine our lives in the Socratic manner.” Socratic questioning requires “a leap into the unknown,” but—and here it differs from existentialism—ever-reasoning Socrates looks before he leaps. This is why Singer defines reason as a set of thoughts leading to unpredictable consequences. He wants to preserve the freedom that choice implies, to allow choice to remain invulnerable to prediction, while also keeping it reasonable. Here is where a historicist or quasi-historicist element enters into his theory. “Reasoning is inherently expansionist” in the sense that “it seeks universal application,” gaining territory, so to speak, from unexamined moral customs from one generation to the next, so long as there is no substantial interruption in the process of transition between generations. Reasoning, then, is ‘evolutionary’ in its own way, whether or not it follows the path of Hegelian dialectic. “Once the limits [of conventional beliefs] become the subject of rational inquiry and are found wanting, custom has to retreat and reasoning can operate within broader bounds, which then in turn will eventually be questioned.” This amounts to a more ambitious form of Socratism, an earnest Socratism, or a more modest form of Hegelianism, one that does not claim to have arrived at the end of ethical reasoning.
It is reminiscent also of Adam Smith’s impartial spectator. [2] “We can progress toward rational settlement of disputes over ethics by making the element of disinterestedness inherent in the idea of justifying one’s conduct to society as a whole, and extending this into the principle that to be ethical, a decision must give equal weight to the interests of all affected by it,” “disregard[ing] my knowledge of whether I gain or lose by the action I am contemplating.” In this formulation, the problem lies in “interests.” To count ethically, must they not be exclusively good interests—begging the question of natural right, once again.
Singer emphasizes the social character of his ethical system, resisting the notion that “values” (as he calls them, deciding the question in advance) have “objective” standing, by which he means “something in the universe, existing entirely independently of us and of our aims, desires, and interests, which provides us with reasons for acting in certain ways”—whether divine or natural. As to God, He exists independently, all right, but according to the Bible has linked Himself to us first by the act of creation and then by his continued love for us, seen in His care for our well-being. As to nature, if ethical reasoning is part of human nature, and human nature part of nature as a whole, then there must be ethics “built into the very nature of things,” the things that include human beings, that produced human beings, that continue to support human beings (at least for now). Singer is right to say that “values” are “inherently practical,” but the fact that practical reasoning differs from theoretical reasoning does not preclude any connection between the discoveries of practical reasoning and the discoveries of theoretical reasoning. The theoretical discovery of human sociality, for example, evidently “requires me to take a perspective from which my own interests count no more, simply because they are my own, than the similar interests of others.” The nature of things other than human beings would presumably continue to exist if human beings perished, but it would be a somewhat different nature. Would that nature not continue to have the potential to produce human beings, if the right ‘local’ conditions prevailed? This is what Leo Strauss may mean when he writes that the earth provides a “home” for man.
Singer contents himself by adjuring us to “cling to the simpler idea that ethics evolved out of our social instincts and our capacity to reason,” and that the result of that evolution is “the principle of equal consideration of interests,” which depends upon “nothing but the fact that we have interests, and the fact that we are rational enough to take a broader point of view from which our own interests are no more important than the interests of others.” This indicates the influence of democracy or egalitarianism on Singer’s thought, suggesting that his thought inclines in the direction of the regime in which he has lived. Singer recognizes that his thought is democratic, while insisting that democracy is an innate property of reason itself, that “the feeling of need for consistency” or avoidance of self-contradiction universalizes conduct, if left to work itself out unimpeded by force or fraud.
“Where does this process end?” he quite reasonably asks. It ends not only with liberty and equality but fraternity. The French revolutionaries were right. And so, for example, “there can be no brotherhood when some nations indulge in previously unheard-of luxuries, while others struggle to stave off famine,” or if the more complex animals are not seen to have rights (“from an impartial point of view, the pleasures and pains of non-human animals are no less significant because the animals are not members of the species Homo sapiens“). To claim otherwise is to commit the sin of ‘speciesism.’ This consideration does not extend to plants, however, as they lack sentience; “there is nothing we can do that matters to them.” In his own egalitarian way, Singer respects the Aristotelian definition of distributive justice: equal things to equals. We may kill and eat oysters and insects, but not cows or deer, which are our equals when it comes to feeling, and fearing, pain. The universalizing process of rational thought ends with rationally perceived distinctions among beings.
Hume would say that such concerns are impotent, that reason is “the slave of the passions.” Speciesism or no speciesism, I am unlikely to forgo filet mignon, topped with mushrooms, my taste clarified by sips of a good Cabernet and topped off with a slice of chocolate mousse cake. Singer prudently takes on a lesser challenge: “the growth of modern contraceptive techniques is a splendid example of the use of reason to overcome the normal consequences of our evolved behavior,” showing “that reason can master our genes.” That is, “there is no reason to believe that we always do what is in our own interest,” defined as satisfying our emotions. “We can therefore go on to consider with an open mind the possibility of rational based altruism,” although the use of contraceptives may not always be the best example of that. “Once reason is admitted to have a role to play in ethics, however, there is nothing at all surprising in the fact that, despite immense cultural differences, outstanding thinkers in different periods and places should extrapolate beyond more limited forms of altruism to what is essentially the same fundamental principle of an impartial ethic.” Doing unto others what you would have others do unto you: God and His revelation are looking better and better.
How, then, do we explain the fact that so many of us act as if the reasons for taking “an objective point of view” do not apply to them? Because Hume wasn’t entirely wrong to say reason is the slave of the passions. “Alone and unaided, reason cannot give rise to action,” as “there must be some desire, some want or aversion, some pro or con feeling with which reason can combine to generate an action.” That might lead to Socrates’ proposed alliance between logos and thumos, ruling the appetites and thereby achieving justice within the soul and the city. But Singer takes the ‘modern’ stance; reason is the slave (Hume) or the scout (Hobbes) of the passions, “a tool for obtaining what one wants.” Nonetheless, “tools have a way of influencing the purpose for which they are used,” as seen in the automobile, invented for transportation from one place to another but also used for recreational driving and exploration. “In the case of ethical reasoning, we begin to reason impartially in order to justify our conduct to others, and then discover that we prefer to act in accordance with the conclusions of impartial reasoning.” There is human nature, but it evolves because we ‘feel better’ if we act consistently. (Well, unless we are Walt Whitman, untroubled by ‘cognitive dissonance,’ otherwise known as self-contradiction.) Socrates would tell Walt that his soul is wrongly ordered and insofar as wrongly ordered, unnatural. Singer cannot bring himself to say such a thing, only going so far as to suggest that Walt would feel better about himself if he gave logical self-examination a good try. Indeed, “the lives of those who have nothing to do but enjoy themselves are much less happy than we would expect them to be if human nature were suited to the unalloyed pursuit of personal pleasure…. Perhaps the boredom and loss of interest in life observable in many of those with no purposes beyond their own pleasure are the result of neglecting this aspect of our nature.” Perhaps so, perhaps so.
Singer concludes by giving sociobiology its due. “It enables us to see ethics as a mode of human reasoning which develops in a group context, building on more limited, biologically based forms of altruism”—evidently by deploying the equally natural human capacity to reason. “The principles of ethics come from our own nature as social, reasoning beings,” and “the fact that our ethical judgments are not dictated to us by an external authority does not mean that any ethical judgment is as good as any other,” as we choose “what we are going to do,” even as “we do not choose the way the world is.” It then transpires that “emphasizing the rational element in ethical choice…narrows the gap between facts and values,” as “facts may be relevant” to ethical reasoning, even if they do not determine it. But of course even as Singer resists the thought, the fact of human nature does indeed turn out to be the basis of such reasonable choice.
Another Aristotelian notion occurs to him in the last chapter. What ought to be the ethical code not only of individuals but for human society? The ‘impartial spectator’ standard is important but too abstract to give the specific ethical guidance we need as individuals and as members of civil societies. At the same time, any guidance should remain cognizant of “the realities of human nature.” “Just as city life does not fit into the abstract rational patterns of town planners, so a code of ethics for human beings will not fit the abstract imperative of impartial reason,” as “we cannot pretend that human nature is so fluid that moral educators can make it flow wherever they wish.” On the other hand, although “human nature is not free-flowing…its course is not eternally fixed.” The impartial spectator needs allies among the emotions, and these should be “rules” or (in civil societies) laws designed to foster family bonds, to encourage reciprocity, and to discourage cheating. Such an “ethic of rules builds on our feelings for others as individuals rather than on an impersonal concern for all,” a concern which remains the standard but cannot be said to be self-enforcing. Such rules shore us up, especially when under stress. Singer quotes the American foreign-policy expert Chester Bowles: the Bay of Pigs fiasco showed “how far astray a man as brilliant and well intentioned as Kennedy can go who lacks a basic moral reference point.” “A social code of ethics needs moral rules for several reasons: to limit our obligations, to make them more personal, to educate the young, to reduce the need for intricate calculations of gains and losses, to control the temptation to bend ethical calculations in our own favor, and to build the commitment to truthfulness which is essential for communication.”
Singer also appreciates the opposite point about rules or laws: just as they helpfully stiffen our adherence to the abstract standard of right, so they can stiffen us too much. The well-known example Socrates mentions in the Republic is entirely valid. Lying is usually wrong, but if an enraged man demands to know where you keep your weapons, you’ll do well to mislead him. “The rules of ethics are not moral absolutes or unchallengeable intuitions” because “human nature and human life are too complex for that.” Here is where Singer should recall Aristotle’s emphasis on prudential reasoning as indispensable for ethics. Prudence or practical reason takes account of the circumstances of time and place. It may ‘tell’ us to violate a law but never the ‘spirit’ of the law, the purpose of the law as set down in observance of the abstract ethical standard or set of standards.
In sum, “ethics is a morass, but a morass with a definite and explicable shape.”
Notes
- Singer adds that in addition to biology, historical study can also debunk “accepted ethical practices,” which may be as much “relics of our culture history” as “relics of our evolutionary history.”
- Oddly, Singer associates the opposite principle to Smith—the principle of egoism, that everything should follow his self-interest. This confuses Smith’s theory of moral sentiments with his theory of economics and its attendant law of unintended (often good) consequences that result from motives that are anything but good, on Smith’s own terms as well as by Singer’s.
Recent Comments