FINAL #02

2. Compare/contrast the "moral systems" of Gandhi with Singer. Detail your answer. How might Gandhi's ethical views match or differ from Singer's. In discussing Singer make sure you define utilitarianism (explain in depth what this is) and his overall general moral stance and then compare this perspective with Gandhi. Would Gandhi disagree or agree with Singer? In what areas of ethics? Explain your stance here.

utilitarianism is an ethical theory that based itself on the concept of greatest pleasure for the most people. what defines good is pleasure, and evil is pain. so in order for one to reach true happiness, pain has to nullified and pleasure has to me maximized. utalitarianism is in a way not any different than hedonism, goes on a little further to claim that morality means promoting the greatest happiness to the most of society. happiness for oneself is not yet the final happiness that everyone seeks, but happiness for the whole entire society is.

singer being a utilitarianist, introduces the importance of the concept of pain in all of his arguments. it seems to me, however, that singer concerns more with nullifying pain rather than maximizing pleasure. for singer, one out of many reasons he considers animal killing (for food) as immoral is the fact that animals experiences pain and pain reduces pleasure. not only this, but also for the case of abortion and euthanasia. whatever results in pain should not be done because it only reduces pleasure, a typical view of utilitarianist. now, of course singer's view on each of these subjects are not exactly that, there is more to it, but for the sake of comparison, i take only the outline of his argument.

this argument would not be very compelling to gandhi. while singer also argues against animal killing, gandhi's reasons concern less on the pain vs pleasure concept that singer's argument revolves around. gandhi's argument is based on his belief that animals ARE inferior to human beings, but because of this human beings should protect them. gandhi does not concern whether animals feel pain or not, but his argument against animal killing proves to be stronger ---at least for me--- because he looks into the values of animals themselves. he sees animals as living beings with values, not something that is to be judged solely on pain and pleasure, like the argument peter singer and david lane gave. if it were up to me only, gandhi's argument is much more convincing than both singer and lane.

on the issue of euthanasia and abortion, i think singer's as-long-as-it-does-not-inflict-pain policy would also not be very compelling to gandhi. gandhi is not a utilitarianist, so whether a fetus can experience pain or not will not be taken into account on his view on abortions. gandhi will most likely argue against abortion, because he is a person who values life, and regardless of whether fetus can experience pain, fetus has a potential of becoming a human being, and for gandhi this is much more valuable. on euthanasia, it is likely that gandhi would be against such a thing, regardless of voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. but when put to practice, say gandhi is faced by someone who voluntarily requests euthanasia, gandhi's passiveness makes it possible that gandhi would just let him have it. after all, gandhi has firm belief in people's "sense of fairness" and therefore trusts them to know what is best for themselves.