Un Singer peut-il en remplacer un autre ?

Klesis 32:150-190 (2016)
Authors
Nicolas Delon
New College of Florida
Abstract
In the third edition of ‘Practical Ethics’ (2011), Peter Singer reexamines the so-called “replaceability argument,” according to which merely sentient beings, as opposed to persons (self-conscious and with a robust sense of time), are replaceable—it is in principle permissible to kill them provided that they live pleasant lives that they would not have had otherwise and that they be replaced by equally happy beings. On this view, existence is a benefit and death is not a harm. Singer’s challenge is to avoid (i) the replaceability of persons while preserving the replaceability of merely sentient beings, (ii) the implication that parents are morally required to procreate if they can have happy children, and (iii) to do avoid these implications without having the proposed solution (the “debit view” of preferences) imply negative utilitarianism, or the conclusion that a nonsentient universe is better than any sentient universe. I review Singer’s changing views since 1975 and I argue that his attempt to avoid the replaceability of persons fails: either both non-persons and persons are replaceable or neither are. Singer can only avoid this conclusion by appealing to controversial metaethical claims (attitude-independent moral objectivism) and/or giving up on essential features of utilitarianism.
Keywords killing animals  replaceability  farming  food ethics  death  existence  harm  self-consciousness  personhood
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Replaceability Argument in the Ethics of Animal Husbandry.Nicolas Delon - 2016 - Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics.
What is the Problem of Replaceability?Ricardo Miguel - 2016 - In I. Anna S. Olsson, Sofia M. Araújo & M. Fátima Vieira (eds.), Food futures: ethics, science and culture. Wageningen Academic Publishers. pp. 52-58.
Singer on Killing and the Preference for Life.Michael Lockwood - 1979 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-4):157 – 170.
Das Töten von Tieren und von Föten.Wolfgang Lenzen - 1990 - Analyse & Kritik 12 (2):190-205.
Utilitarian Killing, Replacement, and Rights.Evelyn Pluhar - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):147-171.
Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference.William MacAskill - 2014 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (2):269-283.
Killing Humans and Killing Animals.Peter Singer - 1979 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-4):145 – 156.
Is Peter Singer Inconsistent in His Ethics?Prabhu Venkataraman & Tanuja Kalita - 2014 - Cadernos Do Pet Filosofia 5 (10):45-52.
Harm in the Wild: Facing Non-Human Suffering in Nature. [REVIEW]Beril İdemen Sözmen - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1075-1088.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-02-01

Total downloads
60 ( #103,609 of 2,266,748 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
30 ( #12,887 of 2,266,748 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature