After the completion of Peter Singer’s The Life You Can Save, Singer succeeded in making me reconsider the actions that I take with regard to how I spend my money. However, unlike after reading Foer’s Eating Animals, I do not see myself making any major changes to my life other than the occasional acts of charity I have already been making. Though his argument’s reason is seemingly intact, it just was not enough for me to drastically change my life. Something was missing. Then, after revisiting the foundation of Singer’s, utilitarianism, I realized why.
“What the individual ought to do, and what the best moral rule directs one to do, are not necessarily identical” (Singer, 152).
This is the source of why Singer does not work for me. I believe that this type of thinking is what leads to many of the problems that we face in this world. Even with the differences in moral construction, if people did not subscribe to this philosophy, the only issue that would need to be resolved is what moral system should be adopted. Instead, we are left with, in Singer’s philosophy, a moral cop-out for the overarching morality. This, for me, is unacceptable.
In contrast, Foer sets the moral standards as being a vegetarian, but provides intermediate steps for being more moral than a “I’ll eat anything that is put on my plate” omnivore. Because the action was about being moral itself, not about the better consequences, the argument stuck with me. Every time I would eat any sort of meat, I would feel a sense of shame at myself for not being a better person. I had to change if I wanted to be able to live with myself ethically. Conversely, if we examine the consequences alone, charity will not solve poverty, only alleviate its effects. Along with the aforementioned statement, I am provided a moral out because the consequences, on the macro level, are seemingly minimally better especially when considering only the individual contribution from someone.
However, all is not lost for me and those who have issues with this line of thinking. There is a man who is the champion of morality for the sake of itself, the master of reason, discoverer of the categorical imperative:
How may I be of service?
“If we act from inner principles, if we do a thing simply because it is good in itself and do it with a liking, such conduct is truly pleasing in the sight of God” (Lectures on Ethics, 42).
This is the type of morality that I want to live by. People should not perform good deeds because of recognition of others or other incentives that are the results of inclination, they should do them for the reason that they are good. This is where I can come to the conclusion that I cannot universally apply the suffering of others in order to live a more comfortable life, whether it be via the consumption of meat or the consumption of material objects instead of charity to the poor.
To conclude, if we want to make the world a better place to live, we need to eliminate the false dichotomy of the “lesser” of two evils that is the result of consequentialism. Consequentialism is a self-sustaining process that will sustain the problems of the world because the lesser evil will be the greater evil for another group of people. This philosophy can justify almost anything as long as the benefit for someone is great enough. I do not find this to be acceptable. Instead, we should do what is right, despite the consequences, because this will move the world toward what Kant describes as “moral perfection.” At the very least, we will be able to live with ourselves despite the consequences with the comfort of doing what is right. A consequentialist’s morality will be based on the whims of fortune, thus could never attain morality.
Sunrise to the attainment of Morality
Morality and Politics 