The Guilt Singer Brings

When I decided to stop eating meat my sophomore year, my older brother told me about Singer. My brother is interested in philosophy, and had read a lot of Singer's work. He told me that Singer wrote a lot about being vegetarian, giving all money you don't need away, and that I may find him very interesting. I never tried to find anything that Singer wrote on my own, but now that we read one of his articles, I am very interested.

What I first noticed after reading Singer's article is that I felt guilty. My first reaction was "this guy is crazy", and realized I probably just thought that because he made a lot of sense. My parents pay for everything I need. I live in a house, I have clothes, and my mom goes grocery shopping pretty much every day. However, I still work and don't give away that disposable income to people in need, I put it in my savings account, buy food out, or go shopping.

Although Singer makes a lot of sense, there is a reason many people feel angry after reading his ideas. Clearly, most people prefer to save their money for themselves, whether they are indulging or making sure they are financially secure in the future. Either way, even if people donate regularly, they want to keep most of their money. This is a common human trait, and even super rich people go to extreme  lengths in order to make even more money. People are greedy.

Singer makes good points and uses a lot of logic. However, I don't think his ideas are completely realistic, no matter how wonderful and ethical they are. It would be interesting to see more people like Singer in the world, who are greedy for doing good and not money. The world would definitely be a completely different place.

The Failure of Singer

Peter Singer is not human. Now wait, that isn't an insult, it's simply the driving force behind his argument in Animal Liberation and his ridiculous essay on giving. You wouldn't call your cat cat, you wouldn't say, Tiger is cat. No, you would say Tiger is a cat and in that same way Peter Singer is a human, but still not human. He is human only in the way that human is a species of animal not in the fact that is a core part of his self.

Why is this distinction important? Because it reveals the true flaw in his argument on giving. Peter Singer said in Animal Liberation that we all need to stop eating meat because animals are on the same moral plane as us. But wait, have you ever seen a bear eat a piece of fruit instead of a grub because it wanted to alleviate the suffering of said grub? Or have you seen a horse care for another dying horse? No, you haven't. Why is that? Because humans are the only species that gives to those of their species in need. And why is that? Because they are on a higher moral plane.

At this point we have reached an impasse between Singer's two arguments. One is that human and animals are on the same moral plane and the other is that humans need to give more because their moral plane dictates it. These don't mesh. Either we need to be able to freely hoard our money spending it only on vegetarian delicacies or we need to be able to eat meat while giving all we can. Either we are better than animals because we give and can feel justified in eating them or we should accept our lower place among them, creatures that don't give, and eat only plants. 

Singer forgets that a philosopher such as himself needs to make sure his theories mesh and in this case they clearly don't.