What Is Singer's Principle Of Equality
Singer’s principle of equality appears intuitively practical and convincing as it favours the dismissal of many types of discrimination based on innate characteristics such as gender and ethnicity. However, it can have radical consequences deeming it far less attractive than its prima facie appeal. Singer’s moral concepts and ideologies have often been termed useful for normative ethics as they are founded on presumptions that are simple and universally acknowledged (Schaler, 2009). Nonetheless, I will explain how the principle of equality that Singer defends contradicts his ‘utilitarian exemption’ that allows for the prioritisation of the equal interests of one person before the equal interests of another person based on the outcomes of the action.
Singer roughly describes the principle of equal consideration of interests as a minimal principle of equality, and acknowledges that ‘it …show more content…
21-22). He goes onto state that ‘an interest is an interest, whoever’s interest it may be’; proposing that the bearer of the interest is of no moral relevance. That’s to say, if only two individuals, A and B, were to be affected by a possible action, and if A stands to lose more than B does to gain, then it is better not to perform the action. In other words, B should not favour herself over A just because she holds the belief that her interests are of greater importance than A’s. The given example outlines how the principle of equality considers interests impartially, favouring individuals whose interests are stronger while disregarding who the interests may belong to (Singer, 2011, pp. 20-21). Singer also recognizes that dissimilar individuals have varying interests which may differ depending on their capabilities or other
Singer roughly describes the principle of equal consideration of interests as a minimal principle of equality, and acknowledges that ‘it …show more content…
21-22). He goes onto state that ‘an interest is an interest, whoever’s interest it may be’; proposing that the bearer of the interest is of no moral relevance. That’s to say, if only two individuals, A and B, were to be affected by a possible action, and if A stands to lose more than B does to gain, then it is better not to perform the action. In other words, B should not favour herself over A just because she holds the belief that her interests are of greater importance than A’s. The given example outlines how the principle of equality considers interests impartially, favouring individuals whose interests are stronger while disregarding who the interests may belong to (Singer, 2011, pp. 20-21). Singer also recognizes that dissimilar individuals have varying interests which may differ depending on their capabilities or other