![]() Cover of the 1980 edition | |
| Author | Peter Singer |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | Ethics |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
Publication date | 1979 (first edition) 1993 (second edition) 2011 (third edition) |
| Publication place | United States |
| Media type | Print (hardcover andpaperback) |
| Pages | 395 (second edition) |
| ISBN | 0-521-43971-X (second edition paperback) |
Practical Ethics, a 1979 book by the moral philosopherPeter Singer, is an introduction toapplied ethics.
Singer analyzes, in detail, why and how beings' interests should be weighed. In his view, a being's interests should always be weighed according to that being's concrete properties, and not according to its belonging to some abstract group. Singer studies a number ofethical issues includingrace,sex, ability,species,abortion,euthanasia,infanticide,embryo experimentation, the moralstatus of animals,political violence,overseas aid, and whether we have an obligation to assist others. The 1993 second edition adds chapters onrefugees, theenvironment,equality anddisability, embryo experimentation, and the treatment of academics inGermany.[1][2] A third edition published in 2011 omits the chapter on refugees, and contains a new chapter onclimate change.[3]
Practical Ethics is widely read and was described as "an excellent text for an introductory ethics course" by the philosopherJohn Martin Fischer.[4] The philosopherJames Rachels recommended the book "as an introduction centered on such practical issues as abortion, racism, and so forth."[5] The philosopherMylan Engel called the book "must reading for anyone interested in living an ethical life."[6]
H. L. A. Hart's review of the first edition inThe New York Review of Books was mixed. While writing that "The utility of this utilitarian's book to students of its subject can hardly be exaggerated", Hart also criticizedPractical Ethics for philosophical inconsistency in its chapter on abortion. He argues that Singer insufficiently explains how preference and classical utilitarianism each view abortion, and does not bring out their differences.[7]