Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics

Overview

Peter Singer challenges traditional sanctity-of-life thinking and argues for an ethics grounded in consequences, interests and capacities. He examines contentious issues surrounding birth, death and medical decision making, aiming to replace religious and intuition-based rules with arguments rooted in moral philosophy and empirical facts about consciousness. The tone is provocative and systematic, intended to reshape public policy and personal choices about life-ending decisions.

Foundations of Moral Thought

Singer deploys a preference-utilitarian framework, holding that moral decisions should aim to satisfy the interests or preferences of those affected. Interests matter because beings can experience well-being and suffering; moral weight attaches not to species membership or mere biological life but to the capacity to have interests. Singer emphasizes clarity and consistency: once one accepts the importance of interests and suffering, many traditional prohibitions against killing and therapeutic research require rethinking.

Personhood and Moral Status

Central to Singer's account is a distinction between human organisms and persons. Personhood is defined by characteristics such as consciousness, self-awareness, the capacity to anticipate a future, and the ability to hold preferences. Moral status derives from these capacities rather than from belonging to the species Homo sapiens. This criterion leads to counterintuitive but carefully argued conclusions: some nonhuman animals may deserve significant moral consideration while some human beings who lack person-like capacities may not have the same rights against being killed.

Death and Euthanasia

Singer argues that the permissibility of euthanasia depends on the presence of interests and the quality of life those interests support. Where continued life entails irreparable suffering, loss of consciousness, or no future-oriented preferences, active euthanasia or assisted dying can be morally defensible. He critiques rigid legal bans, supports voluntary euthanasia under strict safeguards, and explores cases where the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment is ethically permissible. The emphasis is on minimizing suffering and respecting the interests of sentient beings.

Abortion, Embryos and Infants

Applying the personhood criterion, Singer treats early embryos and fetuses as lacking the conscious experiences that ground interests, and thus as having a different moral status from persons. He argues that abortion and many forms of embryo research can be morally acceptable, especially when weighed against the interests of the pregnant woman or the potential benefits to others. Newborn infants, he contends, do not automatically possess the full moral standing of persons; in extreme cases of severe impairment where future well-being is impossible, permitting death may be morally permissible. These positions provoke intense debate because they challenge deep-seated intuitions about inviolability of newborn human life.

Practical and Policy Implications

Singer explores the legal and institutional consequences of his arguments, urging clearer policies for euthanasia, organ transplantation, and resource allocation in healthcare. He argues that societies must confront hard choices about scarce medical resources by assessing interests and likely outcomes rather than defaulting to blanket protections for biological life. He calls for safeguards to prevent abuse while maintaining honesty about the ethical principles guiding decisions.

Reception and Critique

The book generated strong controversy and sustained critical engagement. Supporters praise its rigor, consistency and willingness to confront painful questions. Critics argue that Singer's personhood criteria risk devaluing disabled lives, underestimating the moral significance of potentiality and community-based obligations, and relying too heavily on utilitarian calculations that could justify harmful practices. The debate it sparked highlights enduring tensions between principle-driven compassion, respect for persons, and social fears about slippery slopes.