Daily Inspiration Quote by Peter Singer

Singer is doing a characteristic two-step: he concedes the gut-level moral intuitions people treat as bedrock, then quietly pulls the floorboards up beneath “ethics” as a finished instruction manual. Reciprocity gets pride of place because it feels ancient and obvious - the social glue of cooperation, the moral instinct that makes “fairness” seem like physics. By starting there, Singer signals he isn’t denying moral experience; he’s diagnosing it.

Then comes the pivot: a “set of worked-out rules” is “a human product.” That phrasing matters. He’s not saying ethics is arbitrary, or that anything goes. He’s saying codified morality is engineered - assembled, revised, and justified by creatures with needs, incentives, and limited information. The subtext is anti-mystical: moral codes don’t descend from the sky; they’re drafted in the messy workshop of human life. That move also slips a challenge under the door of tradition. If rules are made, they can be unmade. If they’re constructed, they can be improved.

Contextually, this sits neatly inside Singer’s broader project: treat ethics less like inherited etiquette and more like a problem-solving discipline, one willing to override parochial instincts when better reasoning is available. Reciprocity may be central to how we intuitively “see” ethics, but it’s not the same as a comprehensive moral program. Singer’s intent is to separate moral perception from moral legislation - and to nudge the reader toward the unsettling implication that what we call “moral law” is often just a snapshot of human priorities, awaiting its next edit.