Ethics in the Real World: 90 Essays on Things That Matter – A Fully Updated and Expanded Edition

People with wealth, or political power, are in a position where there are difficult ethical decisions (to paraphrase parts of p. 24). This could mean, for example, that when state legislators in the US are given citizens letters to raise the gasoline tax ten cents ($0.10/gal) for climate and efficiency, and these legislators avoid the topic they have more responsibility for a bad climate outcome than several hundred much less influential climate activists. The Singer recommendation that everyone with about $30,000 or more yearly income donate to good charities has to equally apply to elected politicians and government employees, who can by their decisions shift some small amount of money per person per day (ex. $1 day in higher gasoline tax on average) for the common good. More generally though, the voters who are about 80% Democrat in Blue states could easily push through a ten cent a gallon gasoline tax increase for climate funds, and thus have a kind of widespread or diffused moral responsibility equal to or greater than any state governor or any one legislator. Additionally, any public employees such as in the state AG office that censor climate debate have a particularly high level of responsibility for climate and the droughts that will occur, leading to famine. These issues of personal responsibility, in the ethics debate, do not match up with US law. Elected leaders have sovereign immunity and will not get fined or go to prison for bad decisions. So there is a big gap between ethical duties and legal duties of elected presidents, governors, legislators. This may seem like something that is problematic, however, in a nation like Russia which may enter a new era after the Ukraine war, it is possible and economically feasible to have ethics debates in the media and at universities where politics and ethics are separate. This gives cover to social reformers who like other great reformers in the 19th and 20th century had to advance ethical goals that were not seen or declared a threat to the government.

A logical approach to problems from a utilitarians point of view.

Great collection of well reasoned arguments about contemporary issues with ethical components (meaning that not much is off limits). I enjoyed it but felt the author focused pretty heavily on cost / benefit analysis and utilitarian considerations and I was hoping he would draw more broadly on philosophical traditions I am less familiar with.

Whether you agree with Singer or not, this book will take you an ethical, philosophical and thought provoking journey. Singer touches on modern day topics with incredible relevance to the world we live in. Fantastic read for anyone willing to broaden their thoughts on real world topics.

Singer’s ethical views are always insightful and refreshing. These 90 brief essays are clear, direct and often unflinching.

I bought this because of Singer's paper on Famine, Affluence, and Morality, hoping to read some interesting thoughts on ethics and philosophy. In his essays, Singer advocates for animal rights, safe abortions, gay rights, vaccination, combatting climate change, and so on. These positions are arguably good things. However, there's nothing much new or original and the book is unlikely to change your opinions or give you a new perspective.

I am very interested in bioethics and have read some of Dr Singer’s academic texts on my particular field of interest (end of life care), so I knew I would disagree with a LOT, but man… the fact that he is one of the most “proeminente experts” in our culture sure does say a lot about it’s obvious decay.

Had to buy it for a class. Very interesting book

Mit Singer muss man nicht unbedingt immer einer Meinung sein

Delving straight in and very happy with my adventure

Wow, I'm only on the fourth chapter and am seriously disappointed. Singer is self-described on the back cover as the "world's most influential author". But on the chapter about belief in god he sets up a classic straw man argument about god and suffering, and ends it with a parting salvo that the straw man has recently been charged with illegal political contributions! Seriously, this is the best a top philosopher can do about the issue of the existence of god? Make no mistake this is just pop philosophy. Nothing to learn here folks.

.