Utilitarianism in Practice

1) The categorical imperative for civil disobedience states that is the duty of an individual to be disobedient if there is an unjust law being proposed by an unjust government. This view becomes maximally right when the largest number of people will be affected in a negative way by the new law or policy change. There are two forms of being civilly disobedient: classic tactics and progressive tactics.

Classic tactics are familiar to anyone who studies history, especially the techniques used by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. They include such things as rallies, sit-ins, and picketing. While these tactics may garner some support from the public and definitely bring attention to the issue, they have their drawbacks. These tactics follow the classic philosophy of peaceful demonstration and strive to bring attention to an issue, but they are not tactics that are fully capable of implementing change. They are only a temporary respite form the issues that they seek to address. The biggest flaw is that the public has a very, very short attention span. If these tactics last for too long, the public will eventually lose interest. The loss of workers using these tactics can also spur employers to bring in other workers, especially those who are non-union and have no contract.

Progressive tactics are much more proactive and have more immediate impact. These include such things as hacktivism, covert actions, and other such tactics that do not always comply with the classical peaceful tactics. These tactics have a more immediate impact that can be seen. They also include more risk to those involved in them. The progressive tactics can backfire, not only because they involve increased risk to the activists, but they can also turn the tide of public opinion again the activists cause. Despite these risks, the progressive tactics can cause immediate shutdowns that force change to at least be considered.

2) Utilitarianism is the foundation of Peter Singer's comprehensive ethical worldview. By definition, utilitarianism is the ethical theory "that says that whatever produces the greatest overall amount of pleasure..or happiness..is morally right" (Hinman 383). Singer uses this concept of the greater amount of happiness and extends it to all living beings.

Singer extends utilitarianism to include the moral point of view of not only human beings, but also of all species. He states that "the case for vegetarianism is at its strongest when we see it as a moral protest against our use of animals as mere things, to be exploited for our convenience in whatever way makes them most cheaply available to us" (Singer 70). He uses this idea to completely blow the traditional way of human thinking out of the water. Singer proceed to talk about how one human being would not like being mistreated by another, especially not being treated the way animals are on factory farms. By applying the concept of utilitarianism broadly, Singer seeks to include not only human beings in this ethical consideration, but all species. According to Singer, since human beings would not wish to be treated as animals are, then animals should not be treated that way either. According to Singer, this concept of ethics does not allow for speciesm in the way in which anyone lives.

3) As can be seen in the last example, Singer uses utilitarianism to bring animals into the center of the ethics deliberation. In Writings on an Ethical Life, the chapter Bridging the Gap finds Singer using the example of the Great Ape Project to show the need for and a slow progress in the change of human attitudes towards animals. Since apes are so closely related to humans, this example makes the most sense since people will relate more to these creatures than to many other species. Singer says that he believes in "extending the basic principle of equality to all sentient being, but this will inevitably be a long and slow process" (Singer 82). He talks about the inhumane treatment of other animals, but in bringing apes into the picture as the easiest step to make, he acknowledges that apes are a tiny fraction of the animals involved in experimentation. He does make the point, however, that because of the ape's close relation to humans, it is easy to transmit the idea of equality form one species to another.

There are examples of when Singer uses the principle of equality to put the interests of animals over humans. This is best seen when he says "the answer is to boycott all meat and eggs produced by large-scale commercial methods, and encourage others to do the same" (Singer 70). The way in which animal interests are favored over that of humans is obvious in this example. Since humanity is so used to eating meat, making the change away from eating meat would cause some discomfort and require a massive change in lifestyle. On the other hand, this new policy would bring a new lease on life to millions of animals raised on farms. In this case, Singer is completely in line with the philosophy that he has proposed up to this point. By taking the stance of humans no longer eating meat, the equality of all species will eventually become very apparent. He does favor human interest in certain cases despite all of this, especially in cases where the life of a human is concerned.

4) The same framework that Singer uses in his approach to animal rights can be applied to his approaches on other topics as well. This is most evident in his thinking about euthanasia and the topic of famine/world poverty.

On the topic of euthanasia, Singer uses utilitarianism and the principle of autonomy to justify it. He says "the principle of autonomy tells us to allow rational agents to live their own lives according to their own autonomous decisions, free from coercion or interference; but if rational agents should autonomously choose to die, then respect for autonomy will lead us to assist them to do as they choose" ( Singer 196). Since the principle of utilitarianism requires that the greatest amount of good be considered, then one can easily say that no harm is being done in this case. In effect, it will lead to a greater amount of good because the burden of a sick and unhappy person will not become the burden of society.

Singer's position on famine and world poverty holds to the same general principles. He argues this position in the same way in which a categorical imperative would be made. He also does not argue that the results of famine are bad. His position is that "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it" (Singer 107). This position is the same one that he takes in One World. The argument here is that since we should all, theoretically, be equal, then it is our duty to put all things back into equality. Since we do not wish to suffer famine or poverty, then we must do what we need to in order to take famine and world poverty out of the lives of others.

5) Throughout Singer's writings on his ethical views, the thread that ties them all together is his attempt to eliminate traditional ways of thinking. By advocating that all species are equal under the principles of utilitarianism, his goal is to eliminate specieism. This is a very radical idea to propose, since the whole way of thinking for the human race is based on the idea that we are superior. It is also a very humbling idea because if it were accepted by enough people, then the place of humanity in the entire scheme of the universe would need to be reevaluated. This approach also shows Singer's attempts to overturn some traditional views within Christianity. Traditionally, Christianity has always taught that humans were put here to be lords over all the animals. Traditional views also taught that women were not equal to men, as well as other such views. By advocating a utilitarian approach to ethical and moral views, Singer is attempting to pout all men, women, and species on an equal footing. This is truly radical, because it implies that there is no dominant way or species on the
planet.

Sources
Lawrence M. Hinman, Ethics: A Pluralistsic Approach to Moral Theory
Peter Singer, Writings on an Ethical Life