Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Do you see any conflict between your spending considerable money on the care of your mother and your principle of spreading out wealth to help the most people?

Yes. In a sense, my spending money on my mother's care is in conflict with that principle. But so is the fact that I flew back to Australia to visit my daughters at Christmas. That money could also be better spent elsewhere. I've never claimed that I live my life perfectly in accordance with those principles of sharing my money as much as I should.

Interview with Peter Singer by Princeton Alumni Weekly, January 26, 2000.

Is Peter Singer a hypocrite? Lonnie Lee Best, from his excellent web page on "The Psychology of Hypocrisy", defines a hypocrite as 'a person whose actions contradict his or her stated or internal beliefs. (Or vice versa.)' From the sections on "Singer's Mother" and "Singer's Donations", it seems clear enough that Singer falls into this category.

So what? My supervisor pointed out that most philosophers did not feel that the study of ethics was tightly connected to practice. In this way, hypocrisy, if it arises, is a separate issue. This sentiment is echoed by Jeff Sharlet in the Chronicle of Higher Education (March 10, 2000):

[P]hilosophy need not be autobiographical. The validity of Mr. Singer's ideas doesn't depend on his qualities as a son or his personal failings as a utilitarian. His rigor isn't so much in his behavior as it is in his willingness to contemplate fully the end of a line of reasoning, even if he doesn't go there himself.

So there is the analysis. Singer has been willing to contemplate fully the end of a line of reasoning based on the popular philosophical position of preference utilitarianism. This process has led him to some difficult conclusions. He has chosen to go some, but not all, of the way towards acting on those conclusions. How, then, does this invalidate either his original theory of ethics or its difficult conclusions?

In a way, it doesn't, at least not simpliciter. But it does suggest that Singer could be examining some aspects of his line of reasoning more thoroughly. It is not good enough merely to accept that you are unwilling to act according to your ethics. (Not that I think that Singer has done this.) It behooves you to examine closely why it is that you are unwilling thus to act. This is, of course, important for personal reasons, because otherwise it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are simply a bad person. But it is important for philosophical reasons as well. Your intuitions might be trying to tell you something that your rationale does not take into account. The rigid application of reason may submerge intuitions from the front of your mind. But then they will resurface in your actions through your practical will. That is why hypocrisy is not a separate issue from the study of ethics. It is also why Singer's personal failings as a utilitarian are not separate from the validity of his ideas.

The New Yorker described Singer as perhaps "the most controversial philosopher alive". But it is not controversial to care for your sick mother. Nor is it controversial to visit your children at Christmas. It is difficult to make any obvious case that these actions are immoral. Singer, in his heart of hearts, I suspect, does not believe they are either, else why would he have been--or still be--in the habit of performing them? Actions speak louder than words. It is not ad hominem to call people on their hypocrisy when they are trying to enlighten you about the "ethical life". It is merely to take a cue from indications of this life that these people find easier to ignore than you do. One may reach many callous conclusions when one merely thinks in the abstract. When one sees the concrete reality in front of one's eyes, it is something different entirely. One might then realise that one has "abstracted away" some things of moral significance. The social ties you form with real people are a pressing concrete reality. Empirically, it is difficult to deny that these ties are of special moral significance. Singer may be unwilling to admit this verbally. But it seems to me that his actions speak more loudly than his words.

I leave you with the following thought:

Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it's your mother.

Peter Singer to the New Yorker, on paying for private care for his mother, dying of Alzheimer's Disease.