Singer Challenges Bush's Ethics

Peter Singer’s public appearances are frequently greeted by protesters, but the Princeton philosopher whom the Wall Street Journal once branded “Professor Death” elicited a warm response from a crowd of 80 at the First Parish Church in Cambridge last night.

Singer—whom one disabled rights activist called “the most dangerous man alive” because he has justified euthanasia for severely impaired infants—has turned his attention to American political rhetoric in his latest book, The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush.

Singer told the crowd that friends and colleagues initially responded incredulously when he announced he would write about Bush’s ethics. Some called the topic “an oxymoron,” while others joked that “it must be a very short book,” Singer said.

But Singer said that Bush’s rhetoric has generated a heightened emphasis on ethics in politics.

“Overwhelmingly he uses the word ‘evil’ as a noun,” Singer said. “When you use ‘evil’ as a noun, you’re referring to it as something substantive. It’s like there’s a force out there, and we have to do something to defeat it.”

Singer said Bush’s moralistic language appeals to voters even beyond the evangelical Christian constituency.

“One of his strongest campaign planks was that he was going to be an ethical leader,” Singer said. “That was crucial in getting him elected—or whatever word you want to use.”

Audience members suggested in a question-and-answer session after the speech that Bush’s moralistic language may be a cynical political ploy. But according to Singer, “if we want to have a real debate about the president’s policies, we should consider the possibility that he is sincere.”

Singer sought to highlight inconsistencies in Bush’s moral reasoning.

“Bush has said he sees it as his role as president of the U.S. to promote a ‘culture of life’ at home and abroad,” Singer said, noting that Bush’s first prime-time television address focused on embryonic stem cell research.

“These embryos are obviously not sentient beings,” Singer said. “They are clusters of cells. They have no anatomy. They have no brain. They can’t feel anything.”

“There’s a gross disparity between the respect President Bush is showing for a small number of human embryos and the disregard he is showing for a large number of Iraqi civilians,” Singer said.

And Singer charged that while Bush claims to support states’ rights, he has sought to bar Oregon from allowing assisted suicide, block California from legalizing marijuana for medical purposes and prevent Massachusetts from granting marriage licenses to gay couples.

Singer described a July 14, 2003 Oval Office press conference at which Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had shut weapons inspectors out of Iraq—a claim Singer said is specious.

“[Bush] didn’t look like he was drunk or on drugs, but it’s hard to explain what else was going on,” Singer said.

“Nothing—he’s stupid,” one audience member interjected.

Bush-bashing continued throughout the question-and-answer session, and none of the audience members challenged Singer’s political views.

The famously-contrarian philosopher said he isn’t used to being so well-received.

“At last, I wanted to have a lot of people agree with me,” Singer quipped in explaining his motivation for writing his latest book.

Princeton’s appointment of Singer to the DeCamp chair of bioethics in 1999 sparked an uproar among the school’s alumni. Publisher Steve Forbes, the former Republican presidential candidate and major donor to Princeton, said he would withhold gifts to the school as long as Singer remained on the faculty.

Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation sold more than half a million copies and catapulted him to prominence within the animal rights movement.

In 1996, he was a Green Party candidate for senator in the Australian province of Victoria, garnering 2.6 percent of the vote.

After last night’s address, Lecturer on the Study of Religion Brian C. W. Palmer ’86 praised Singer for living by his philosophical principles.

“He is one of very few in our society to double-tithe, to give away 20 percent of his income [to charity] every year,” Palmer said.

“The consistency between Singer’s thought and action became clear to me and my students a year ago when, after being interviewed in the course [Religion 1528, ‘Globalization and Human Values’] he invited all who wished to join him at the Federal building in Boston to speak out against Bush’s plans to invade Iraq,” Palmer said.

—Staff writer Daniel J. Hemel can be reached at hemel@fas.harvard.edu.