Ethics: Mankind's obsolete currency

 

Image Credit: David Teniers the Younger, Monkeys in school 

Imagine a world without ethics; a world without the weight of the metaphysical morals weighing on our conscience; a world where the repercussions of our actions equate to only fulfilling our needs, with anarchy and acquisitive forces drive the society.  A true dystopian nightmare shearing and pulverizing humanity and with itself the animal kingdom, the ecosystems and the planet. The discourse on ethics often stems from a fundamental understanding of reason; whether a particular set of actions is practical or idealistic or feasible in a given situation often influences the course of ethical action being taken. Eminent 18^th Century philosopher, Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative binds us to our desires with a sense of moral duty regardless of our desires; a thought experiment that eventually evolved into what a layman would call ‘ethics’. A similar take on moral duty and obligation can be seen in the works of Peter Unger’s book, ‘Living High and Letting Die’, where Unger argues that people living in developed, modern worlds with the feasibility to act ethically should be morally obliged to make sacrifices to help mitigate human suffering and premature death in the third world, and further that it is acceptable. A more recent discourse which has been criticised by some but widely accepted by many can be seen in Peter Singer’s work, essentially focusing on utilitarianism, animal liberation and bioethics in academic and medical fields— the modern moral imperative.

Up until the early 1960s the paradigm of ethics was mostly restricted to the theological and philosophical pursuits; however, with more progress in science and technology and increased concerns and activism pertaining to rights and freedom of individuals birthed the paradigm of what we now know as bioethics—a field radically bringing in a cornucopia of changes into our world. Nurturing and gradually opening up a universal discourse on humanitarian practices and ethics, pushing towards a domino effect of global change in reforms and at the same time striking a balance between cause and effect, buttressed the foundation of this field.

On September 9^th 2020 World Animal Protection got the opportunity to initiate a spirited discussion with Dr. Peter Singer, one of the intellectual founders of the modern animal rights movement and a hedonistic utilitarian. Singer’s ideas have widely contributed to the school of effective altruism — an evidence-based approach to determine effective ways to benefit each other — an idea that stems from the moral imperative to reduce poverty, end cruelty and suffering of animals and animal liberation. With the shifting cogs of modernization, Peter Singer has unequivocally left a lasting impression in the field of ethics with active discourse of abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, surrogacy and religion. With radical ideas that defy the foundational imperatives of society, religion and even the sanctity of life, and a cursory Google search about Peter Singer will dole out a long list of hard hitting criticisms and contradictions to his works before letting us scroll down to find his notable works— a predictable reaction to an academic philosopher attempting to shake away our ‘speciesist’ society’s god complex by believing in equal rights to life  for both humans and animals.  According to Singer, the world as we know it, is based on a biased and deeply flawed moral compass where equal consideration for human beings is acceptable but the same scenario is an absurd notion when extended to animals. Other than animal rights and liberation, for years, an active discourse about abortion laws and planned parenting has always received public scrutiny and negative criticism. Singer’s support of abortion policies stemming from his theory that the right to life is essentially tied to a being’s capacity to hold preferences, and in turn is tied to them feeling pain and pleasure, has thus received mixed responses. As stated in his book, Practical Ethics, “Killing them [infants], therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities existing over time,” — an idea that takes away the sacredness of life and has seemingly shaken the entire canon of western religion, morality and even philosophy.

However, with the world’s capitalizing business model of seeking profits at all costs, ethics or bioethics, to be more precise, remains as the last tensile string holding society together and academic prodigies like Peter Singer being the boulder for progressive change.

 - Swagatama Mukherjee