Peter Singer and Christian Ethics

Abstract

Interaction between Peter Singer and Christian ethics, to the extent that it has happened at all, has been unproductive and often antagonistic. Singer sees himself as leading a 'Copernican Revolution' against a sanctity of life ethic, while many Christians associate his work with a 'culture of death'. Charles Camosy shows that this polarized understanding of the two positions is a mistake. While their conclusions about abortion and euthanasia may differ, there is surprising overlap in Christian and Singerite arguments, and disagreements are interesting and fruitful. Furthermore, it turns out that Christians and Singerites can even make common cause, for instance in matters such as global poverty and the dignity of non-human animals. Peter Singer and Christian ethics are far closer than almost anyone has imagined, and this book is valuable to those who are interested in fresh thinking about the relationship between religious and secular ethics.

Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology.

“…Although the two have often been historically opposed, our results suggest that the core of that conflict may lie in utilitarianism’s endorsement of instrumental harm, as well as in its rejection of traditional and absolutist moral rules. Yet religiosity was positively correlated with impartial beneficence, reflecting the important affinities between utilitarianism and Judeo-Christian moral ideals, affinities being explored in some recent work in ethics (Camosy, 2012).…”

“…Sure enough, standard accounts of Christian ethics do generally involve a radical demand for self-sacrifice, impartiality, and universal love. It is really the willingness to harm and the rejection of traditional moral rules that lie at the heart of the historical tension between utilitarianism and religion, and Christian thinkers have recently begun exploring various affinities between the two views (Camosy, 2012).…”

Teleology and Consequentialism in Christian Ethics: Goods, Ends, Outcomes

“…He writes: 'while ultimate happiness only comes from final union with God, it is the current flourishing and happiness of both ourselves and our neighbor that should be the proximate end of our actions'. 60 As the emphasis suggests, Camosy is eager to emphasize that our proximate end includes the happiness of both ourselves and others. Christian ethics, after all, must include love for one's neighbor.…”

“…This problem is hard to avoid because the consequentialist rendering of teleology, in Camosy's words, 'locates primary moral concern in the consequences of one's actions'. 62 And how is one to determine which consequences one should seek except by determining which are good and which are best? The structure of moral rationality on this picture works from the goodness and badness of the different possible states of affairs that one might seek to the goodness or badness of the actions.…”