Moral Utilitarianism: Good, Evil or Context-Sensitive?

To destroy a man there should certainly be some better reason than mere dislike to his taste, let that dislike be ever so strong. -- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) arguing against persecution of homosexuals


On the NPR program Hidden Brain program, host Shankar Vedantam looks into a moral mindset called utilitarianism. The program, Justifying The Means: What It Means To Treat All Suffering Equally, is a 55 minute broadcast segment. Vedantam interviews the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who is now the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Princeton University Center for Human Values.


Long story short, the utilitarian Singer believes that applying cold utilitarianism (logic and math, not personal qualms, applied to more happiness or less suffering) to difficult situations is more moral than other moral ideologies. Part of his logic is that our minds are biased and do flawed thinking and that isn't a rational basis from which to evaluate morality or moral choices. He believes that there are situations where some deeply immoral acts justify greater ends. An example that Singer cites gets right to the point. Is it moral for a person to torture a young, innocent child to a painful death if it leads to a world where all children are treated well and live healthy childhoods forever after? Singer says it is, but he cannot say that he would be able to bring himself to be the torturer.

In essence, what Singer believes is that moral thinking should consider what will most reduce suffering among the most, while increasing happiness the most for the most. Singer argues that the ends can justifying the means if one treats all suffering equally. He extends that to treatment of animals, which led him to morph into a vegetarian. But if one sets any concern for plants or non-human animals aside and just focuses on humans, is it moral to harm or kill one or two to save some or millions of others?

This line of logic arguably falls apart when doing something bad to one or a few would help one or the same number of people. What Singer points out is that humans have an innate tendency to avoid killing one innocent to save many others.

Some have called Singer a moral monster. Is he?