An argument for extending altruism to include all sentient life, based on reason
and sociobiology. He criticizes Edward Wilson's theory that there is a biologically
determined cardinal ethical value to have one's DNA survive in the human gene pool.
Singer's theory is that the altruism inherent in our genes (as a social species) is
the basis of ethics, and that when people use reason to defend the morality of
their actions, they have to appeal to the interests of others (altruism) rather
than to self-interest. This produces ethics that expand from the individual to
the family, the kin group, the tribe, the nation, the brotherhood of man, and
finally to all beings capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. He simply assumes
that altruistic instincts are ethical. He offers no argument to support this
assumption as opposed to selecting another instinct as the cardinal ethical value.
Overall, this is a good attempt to rationalize the bleeding-heart position with
the scientific evidence. I don't understand his quick rejection of Kropotkin's
position. He should have drawn support from it.
Year Read: 1983
Libertarian Essays by Roy Halliday
Back to Nonfiction Book Notes
Back to Fiction Book Notes
Back to Book Notes by Author
This page was last updated on September 29, 2011.
This site is maintained by Roy Halliday. If you have any comments
or suggestions, please send them to