Utilitarianism

1
James Ensor, Christs Entry into Brussels in
1889, 1888
2
Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
3
UTILITARIAN NOTIONS

• A question for ethics is what do we mean by the
  terms good and bad or right and wrong.
• For utilitarianism, these terms are given meaning
  in relation to happiness or pleasure, and
  unhappiness or pain.
• The Greatest Happiness Principle df. Actions
  are right in proportion as they tend to promote
  happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the
  reverse of happiness.
• Happiness df. Pleasure and the absence of
  pain.
• Unhappiness df. Pain and the privation of
  pleasure.

4
PLEASURE AND PAIN

• Mill recognizes that more than this needs to be
  said. For instance, one needs to know what
  things are included in the ideas of both pain and
  pleasure.
• However, this does not affect that utilitarianism
  is grounded on the idea that the desired end of
  all action is pleasure and freedom from pain.
• And it doesnt change the fact that those things
  which we desire are desirable either for the
  pleasure inherent in themselves, or as a means to
  the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of
  pain.

5
PLEASURE AND PAIN AND EPICUREANISM I

• Mill says that some people see a life which has
  as its goal the pursuit of pleasure and the
  avoidance of pain as a pernicious doctrine
  worthy only of swine.
• Some people accuse Epicurus (341-270 BCE) of
  holding this view. However, Mill says that
  Epicureans are falsely accused of saying that
  human beings are capable of no pleasures except
  those of which swine are capable.
• That is, that humans can only pursue the lower
  pleasures of sensation or the goods of the body,
  and not also the higher pleasures of the
  intellect, aesthetic feelings, emotion,
  imagination, and moral feelings.

6
PLEASURE AND PAIN AND EPICUREANISM II

• But Mill says that this is false, that Epicureans
  do not say this, but do recognize the importance
  of higher pleasures to human life.
• But Mill says that this is false, that Epicureans
  do not say this, but do recognize the importance
  of higher pleasures to human life.
• Mill recognizes, however, that many utilitarians
  have not looked to the superiority of mental
  over bodily pleasures not in their intrinsic
  nature but in their circumstantial advantages.
  That is, in their being as means to other kinds
  of pleasure as ends.

7
JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-1832)
8
BENTHAMS PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

• Benthams principle of utility says that actions
  are right when they increase happiness and wrong
  when they increase or result in pain rather than
  pleasure.
• Utility for Bentham means the property of an
  object which enables it to produce pleasure,
  good, benefit, advantage, or happiness in people.
• Utility for Bentham also means the property of
  an object whereby it prevents the occurrence of
  pain, evil, or unhappiness for someone.
• An objects utility is its fitness for some
  purpose, namely the purpose either of maximizing
  pleasure or minimizing pain.

9
HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM

• Bentham is often called a hedonistic
  utilitarian because for him all pleasures are
  equal.
• Accordingly, the pleasure gotten from playing
  cards is no lower than the pleasure gotten from
  listening to a symphony, and the pleasure gotten
  from reading Shakespeare is no higher than the
  pleasure gotten from bowling or gardening.
• Thus the idea, for Bentham, is simply to maximize
  pleasure, and how that maximization occurs is
  irrelevant to the importance of its occurrence.

10
MILL NOT ALL PLEASURES ARE EQUAL

• But for Mill, some kinds of pleasure are more
  desirable and more valuable than others.
• In thinking this he agrees with Epicurus, who
  placed a higher value on intellectual pleasures
  than on the pleasures of sensation.
• And Mill says that this hierarchy of pleasures is
  perfectly consistent with the principle of
  utility.
• For Mill, we do not simply want to consider the
  quantity of pleasure, but the quality of pleasure
  too.

11
HOW IS THE VALUE OF A PLEASURE DETERMINED?

• What makes one pleasure more valuable or higher
  than another?
• Mills answer is that one pleasure is more
  valuable or desirable when those who have
  experienced both kinds of pleasure prefer one
  over the other.
• And if they prefer one pleasure over the other
  even if it means that the preferred pleasure will
  be accompanied by a certain amount of
  displeasure, and in spite of that displeasure
  they would not forgo it for any amount of the
  other pleasure, then the one pleasure is greatly
  superior to the other.

12
THE SUPERIORITY OF ONE PLEASURE TO ANOTHER

• That is, for Mill, pleasure A is superior to
  pleasure B when, even if A comes with some
  displeasure, one would rather have A than any
  amount of B.
• This is what Mill means by saying It is better
  to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
  satisfied better to be Socrates dissatisfied
  than a fool satisfied.
• The pleasure to be gotten from being a human
  being, even if that pleasure comes with a certain
  amount of discontent or discomfort is preferable
  to being a thoroughly happy pig. And it is
  better to have the wisdom and intelligence of
  Socrates, even if that comes with some
  displeasure, than to be a contented fool.
• Cf. Bertrand Russell I would rather be brilliant
  and depressed than stupid and blissful.

13
THE SUPERIORITY OF MENTAL PLEASURES I

• For Mill, it is an unquestionable fact that of
  those people who are acquainted with both the
  pleasures of the body and the pleasures of the
  mind, (those which result from the use of what
  Mill calls the higher faculties) that they
  prefer the latter.
• According to Mill, few human creatures would
  consent to be changed into any of the lower
  animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of
  a beasts pleasures.

14
THE SUPERIORITY OF MENTAL PLEASURES II

• Mill A being of higher faculties requires more
  to make him happy, is capable probably of more
  acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it
  at more points, than one of an inferior type, but
  in spite of these liabilities, he can never
  really wish to sink into what he feels to be a
  lower grade of existence.

15
IMPARTIALITY AND MAXIMUM GOODNESS

• The principle of utility applies to everyone, and
  not just to a single individual.
• Utilitarianism is not concerned with the
  happiness of a single individual, as is egoism,
  but with the happiness of everyone - the greatest
  good for the greatest number.
• The ultimate end of the Greatest Happiness
  Principle of utilitarianism is an existence
  exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich
  as possible in enjoyments, both in point of
  quantity and quality.

16
UTILITARIANISM IS A CONSEQUENTIALISM I

• The standard of morality for the utilitarian is
  the principle of utility actions are right when
  they increase pleasure and actions are wrong when
  they increase pain or misery.
• The goal of utilitarianism is to maximize the
  overall happiness and minimize the overall pain.
• When one is in doubt about the correctness of a
  moral action one simply looks at the likely
  consequences of the action.

17
UTILITARIANISM IS A CONSEQUENTIALISM II

• In order to determine the morality of an action,
  utilitarianism asks Who will be affected by a
  particular action, and how will they be affected?
  
• Will the happiness of those people who are likely
  to be affected by action increase as a result of
  the action? If so, then the action is morally
  correct.
• Will the unhappiness of those people who are
  likely to be affected by action increase as a
  result of the action? If so, then the action is
  morally incorrect.

18
MYSELF AND OTHERS

• Notice that the utilitarian must consider
  everyone who is likely to be affected by the
  action, and not just himself. The utilitarian is
  right to consider her own happiness, but not just
  her own happiness.
• Mill As between his own happiness and that of
  others, utilitarianism requires him to be as
  strictly impartial as a disinterested and
  benevolent spectator.
• For Mill, the ethics of utilitarianism is do as
  you would be done by, and love your neighbor as
  yourself. Thus utilitarianism can be seen as a
  version of the golden rule.

19
A Critique of Utilitarianism
Bernard Williams (1929-)
20
A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

• Williams engages in a thought experiment to test
  the validity of utilitarianism.
• Imagine that Jim is a tourist in a South American
  town which is controlled by soldiers who
  represent a military dictatorship.
• Imagine that some soldiers in town have 20
  innocent people lined up against a wall that they
  plan to shoot.
• Imagine further that Pedro, the leader of the
  soldiers, tells Jim that if he, Jim, will shoot 1
  of the innocents, then Pedro will let the rest go
  free. However, if Jim will not kill one of the
  innocent people, then Pedro and his men will kill
  all 20 of them.
• What should Jim do?

21
THE UTILITARIAN RESPONSE TO THE THOUGHT
EXPERIMENT AND WILLIAMS RESERVATION

• Williams thinks that it is clear what the
  utilitarian will say here. He will say that Jim
  ought to shoot one person to save the other 19.
  This is because having 20 dead people instead of
  19 who are released is worse.
• Williams thinks that the utilitarian will say
  that this is obvious, but it is not obvious to
  Williams.
• Williams says that utilitarianism leaves out of
  consideration the idea that each person is
  specially responsible for what he does, rather
  than being responsible for what other people do.
  (His italics.)

22
INTEGRITY

• That a person is specially responsible for his
  own behavior Williams says is closely connected
  to the notion of integrity.
• A person of integrity is sincere and honest and
  adheres to a code of values, and, in adhering
  strictly to such a code, a person of integrity is
  incorruptible.
• Williams and others think that there is no room
  for integrity in utilitarianism, or
  utilitarianism, at least in its direct forms,
  makes integrity as a value more or less
  unintelligible.

23
UTILITARIANISM AND INDIVIDUAL FEELING I

• Williams considers the effect on Jim of his
  utilitarian choice to kill one person and save 19
  others. How are Jims feelings supposed to enter
  or not to enter into a utilitarian picture of
  what is proper to do?
• What if Jim feels terrible about having to kill a
  single person to save others? Are his feelings
  irrelevant?
• Williams says that, for the utilitarian, Jims
  feelings have nothing to do with the moral
  correctness of the act.

24
UTILITARIANISM AND INDIVIDUAL FEELING II

• Even if Jim feels bad about the killing, the
  utilitarian would say that he has still done the
  morally proper thing, and that Jims feelings
  dont make any difference due to the overall good
  caused by his action.
• Williams says that, from a utilitarian
  standpoint, feelings such as Jims must be
  irrational, and cant have any great weight in a
  utilitarian calculation.

25
UTILITARIANISM AND INDIVIDUAL FEELING III

• A utilitarian could recognize that Jims feelings
  are relevant, since, if he feels bad, then his
  own happiness has been diminished by his actions,
  and happiness is key for the utilitarian.
• However, they are just one persons feeling bad,
  and the greater good that was served by the
  action of killing outweighs the individual
  unhappiness.
• Thus Jims feelings are less important for the
  utilitarian than the 19 lives which he saves by
  shooting one person.

26
WILLIAMS ON INDIVIDUAL FEELING

• For Williams we cannot regard our moral feelings
  merely as objects of utilitarian value.
• Williams thinks that our moral feelings are very
  important since they are responsible in part for
  our moral attitudes.
• That is, part of our morality comes from what we
  can and cannot live with, what our feelings will
  or will not allow us to do.
• Williams says that, to come to regard our
  feelings from a purely utilitarian point of view,
  as happenings outside of our moral self, is to
  lose a sense of ones moral identity, to lose
  ones integrity.

27
NEGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY I

• A person may be thought to be negatively
  responsible for an action which he does not
  commit, but which he could have prevented through
  a different action which he does not perform.
• The idea of negative responsibility is this If I
  do X then the result will be Y, while if I do not
  do X, then the result will be Z. We further
  assume that Z is worse than Y, so that if I do
  not do X then I am responsible for Z.

28
NEGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY II

• If I am responsible for Z by not doing X it is
  because I could have done X, in which case Y
  would have resulted instead of Z. And my not
  doing X is why the term negative is applicable
  here.
• And the idea is that, if I could have prevented Z
  by doing X, then, by not doing it, I therefore am
  to some degree responsible for it.

29
NEGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY III

• Thus the friends and relatives of the 20 dead
  innocent people might blame Jim for not shooting
  one of Pedros 20 prisoners to save the other 19.
  
• This blaming Jim for his failing to do something
  which could have saved lives is then suggesting
  that he bares some responsibility for their
  deaths.
• This responsibility is negative since he does not
  shoot the 20 people himself, rather Pedro and his
  men do that. However, by not doing something
  which could have prevented the deaths of 19
  innocent people Jim is this way partly
  responsible for their deaths.

30
NEGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY IV

• Williams says that the idea of negative
  responsibility is inherent in the
  consequentialism of utilitarianism.
• Williams says that the idea of negative
  responsibility may be enough for us to speak, in
  some sense, of Jims responsibility for the
  deaths of 20 innocent people, but it is
  certainly not enough for us to speak of Jims
  making those things happen. (His italics.)
• That is, Jim did not make Pedro shoot the people,
  nor does his refusal to shoot one make Pedro
  shoot all 20, and so it is difficult to make Jim,
  rather than Pedro, responsible for the killings.

31
UTILITARIANISM AND HAPPINESS I

• Recall that, for utilitarianism, an action is
  right when the happiness of people who are likely
  to be affected by the action is increased, and an
  action is wrong when the unhappiness of people
  who are likely to be affected by the action is
  decreased.
• Utilitarianism wants as many people as possible
  to be happy, and one source of happiness could be
  making other people happy.
• But Williams says that utilitarianism should also
  recognize that many things make people happy, in
  addition to being made happy by making other
  people happy.

32
UTILITARIANISM AND HAPPINESS II

• People are made happy by a range of projects or
  commitments, including commitments to a person, a
  cause, an institution, a career, ones own talent
  or natural ability, or even a commitment to
  danger - as with race car drivers or mountain
  climbers.
• Williams says that none of these commitments is
  itself the pursuit of happiness.
• It is not even clear that just pursuing happiness
  itself, as opposed to pursuing certain projects
  or commitments, is even possible or intelligible.

33
UTILITARIANISM AND HAPPINESS III

• Williams Happiness, rather, requires being
  involved in, or at least being content with,
  something else.
• Even if we were to concede to the utilitarian
  that all of our projects and commitments are
  concerned with making us happy, which need not be
  admitted, still it does not follow, nor could it
  possibly be true, that those projects are
  themselves projects of pursuing happiness.
• Happiness has to be involved with or involve
  something else. Happiness itself cannot be
  pursued.

34
UTILITARIANISM AND HAPPINESS IV

• We have to look at what will make us happy, not
  that happiness itself will make us happy.
• Since happiness itself cannot be pursued, and the
  point of utilitarianism is to increase happiness,
  utilitarianism must look at what things will
  increase happiness, at what kind of projects or
  commitments ought to be pursued.

35
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND THE OVERALL HAPPINESS I

• Another problem for utilitarianism, according to
  Williams, is that a particular project with which
  a person identifies, or which makes him happy,
  may be less important to the overall happiness of
  humanity than some other things.
• But how can we view a persons project as
  dispensable without alienating the person from
  his actions which concern his project, and
  without alienating the person from his conviction
  that the project is important?

36
INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS AND THE OVERALL HAPPINESS II

• A person is identified with the actions, and the
  convictions which underlie those actions, which
  concern his lifes project at a deep level, as
  being what his life is about.
• To give his project meaning only or primarily as
  it fits into the plan of increasing the overall
  happiness is to alienate him from the things
  which give the person his sense of self-identity.
• And this is an attack on his integrity.

37
Why Act Morally?
Peter Singer (1946-)
38
HUMAN NATURE, HAPPINESS, AND PSYCHOPATHY

• Singer says that, because of the diversity of
  human nature, it is probably not possible to make
  a general statement about what kind of human
  character is most likely to bring about
  happiness.
• When we look at the different kinds of character
  of happy people we also have to look at
  psychopaths, people who do not have a good
  character but are nevertheless happy.
• Singer describes a psychopath as a person who is
  asocial, impulsive, egocentric, unemotional,
  lacking in feelings of remorse, shame or guilt,
  and apparently unable to form deep and enduring
  personal relationships.

39
THE PSYCHOPATHIC LIFE I

• It is characteristic of psychopaths that they
  seem to enjoy life even though they are asocial
  and indifferent to the welfare of others.
• Singer says that psychopaths see nothing wrong
  with their behavior and often find it extremely
  rewarding, at least in the short term.
• Because some people are psychopathic we cannot
  say that all people are benevolent, sympathetic,
  and capable of feeling guilt.

40
THE PSYCHOPATHIC LIFE II

• Since psychopaths can be happy, it would appear
  that we cant say that being happy depends on
  being a normal benevolent, sympathetic, person
  capable of feeling guilt.
• But Singer wonders if this is correct, since, as
  psychopaths lie, we can question whether they are
  speaking the truth when they say that they are
  happy.
• And even if they are telling the truth, at least
  as they see it, are they qualified to say that
  they are really happy?

41
THE PSYCHOPATHIC LIFE III

• Singer wonders if psychopaths can really be happy
  if they dont have the normal emotional
  experiences which is an important part of a
  healthy persons happiness.
• But Singer also recognizes that the psychopath
  can ask us how we can be truly happy when we do
  not know what it is like to go through life as he
  does, caring only about himself only, and
  experiencing the freedom and excitement which
  comes from a life of irresponsibility?
• Because each of us only has direct access to our
  own minds, and we cant enter into the minds of
  others, this question is hard to decide.

42
THE PSYCHOPATHIC LIFE IV

• The psychologist Hervey Cleckley thinks that the
  lives of psychopaths lack meaning, and he thinks
  that they are bored since they cant take an
  interest in the things that normal people do,
  such as love of family and friends, success in
  professional life or business, and so forth.
• Singer says that psychopathic people live
  largely in the present and lack any coherent life
  plan.

43
THE PSYCHOPATHIC LIFE V

• And Singer says that Cleckley says that
  psychopaths are bored because their emotional
  poverty means that they cannot take interest in,
  or gain satisfaction from, what for others are
  the most important things in life love, family,
  success in business or personal life, etc. These
  things simply do not matter to them.
• Singer says that most people want their lives to
  have some meaning, and because the life of the
  psychopath seems meaningless, most of us would
  not choose to live a psychopathic life, however
  enjoyable it might be.

44
THE PSYCHOPATHIC LIFE VI

• Thus, given the opportunity, the average
  reflective person would choose to live a
  meaningful rather than a meaningless life, and
  for this reason most of us would not choose to
  live a psychopathic life even if we thought it
  would be enjoyable in some abnormal ways.
• Singer wonders though if there is something
  paradoxical in criticizing the psychopaths life
  for being meaningless. After all, can it not be
  asserted by someone that human life itself
  meaningless?

45
THE MEANING OF LIFE
From the Summit Traveler Looking Over the Sea of
Fog Caspar David Friedrich (1774-1840)
46
THE MEANING OF LIFE I

• Singer Dont we have to accept, in the absence
  of religious belief, that life really is
  meaningless, not just for the psychopath, but for
  all of us?
• If it is true that all human life is meaningless,
  then might we not choose the psychopathic life if
  it is a happy life, since all life will be
  meaningless and not just the psychopaths, and at
  least he is happy?
• But Singer wonders if it is true that, religion
  aside, life is meaningless?

47
THE MEANING OF LIFE II

• Some people think that life has a meaning due to
  God, or at least has a meaning for God, and if we
  could know Gods purpose in creating the universe
  and everything in it, including man, then we
  would know the meaning of human life, at least as
  it relates to God.
• But what if God does not exist?
• If we reject a belief in God, then Singer says
  that we must give up the idea that life has some
  meaning which God gives it.
• It will then follow that life as a whole has no
  meaning. (His italics.)

48
THE MEANING OF LIFE III

• Science tells us that the universe began with the
  big bang about 13.7 billion years ago, and that
  human life eventually evolved through natural
  selection based on random mutations.
• Both the big bang and the evolution of human life
  just happened it did not happen for any overall
  purpose.
• But Singer says that atheists can find meaning in
  life simply in virtue of their preferences, of
  what they find important, and what they like to
  do.
• That is, it is perfectly possible for life as a
  whole to have no meaning at the same time that
  each human life can have meaning for a person in
  terms of what he or she values.

49
THE MEANING OF LIFE IV

• Philosophers such a Jean-Paul Sartre and E. D.
  Klemke say that it is up to man to create his own
  meanings and values. And this is the case,
  according to them, since God does not exist to
  give us meanings and values.
• This is a source of anguish for Sartre but a
  source of excitement for Klemke, who finds the
  limits of mans meanings to be the limits of his
  creativity.
• Klemke further says that the source of all
  meaning and value is consciousness, the
  consciousness which has arisen by chance through
  natural processes.

50
THE PSYCHOPATH AND MEANING I

• Most of us look for a meaning for our lives
  beyond our own pleasures, and this is why Singer
  does not think that the psychopaths life is or
  can be meaningful.
• Singer says that psychopaths are egocentric to
  an extreme, and he says that neither other
  people, nor worldly success, nor anything else
  really matters to them.
• Singer thinks that looking for meaning in
  personal pleasure without caring about anyone or
  anything else is futile.

51
THE PSYCHOPATH AND MEANING II

• For Singer, it is futile to look for meaning for
  life in personal pleasure because We seek a
  meaning for our lives beyond our own pleasures,
  and find fulfillment and happiness in doing what
  we see to be meaningful.
• The reason that the egocentric search for
  pleasure is not ultimately meaningful, according
  to Singer, it is because If our life has no
  meaning other than our own happiness, we are
  likely to find that when we have obtained what we
  think we need to be happy, happiness still eludes
  us.

52
THE PARADOX OF HEDONISM I

• The paradox of hedonism is that those who aim at
  happiness for happinesss sake often fail to find
  it, while others find happiness in pursuing
  altogether different goals.
• For instance, J. S. Mill found that he could not
  find happiness just in looking for happiness
  itself.
• The paradox of hedonism is not a paradox in the
  logical sense, but simply recognizes a fact about
  how people come to be happy.

53
HAPPINESS AND GOALS

• Singer says that we in fact find happiness by
  working towards and then achieving our goals.
• And he suggests that happiness has an
  evolutionary function since it functions as an
  internal reward for our achievements.
• When we achieve something which we are trying to
  achieve our reward for that achievement is
  happiness, and it is something internal since it
  is something which we feel or experience.

54
THE PARADOX OF HEDONISM II

• What Singer says that we find then is that
  happiness is a by-product of aiming at something
  else, and happiness is not to be obtained by
  setting our sights on happiness alone.
• That happiness cannot be found by pursuing it for
  its own sake, but can only result from something
  else which we are pursuing is the paradox of
  hedonism.

55
PSYCHOPATHY AND NORMAL LIFE

• Singer now says that the psychopaths life is
  empty as normal lives are not. And this is
  because the psychopath only looks inward to the
  pleasures of the present moment and not outward
  to anything more long-term or far-fetching.
• Singer says that normal lives have meaning
  because they are lived to some larger purpose,
  that is, some purpose beyond the pleasures of the
  present moment.
• Arthur Schopenhauer is also a thinker who has
  criticized the idea of living for the present
  moment since, as the present is ephemeral,
  anything which only lasts for a moment cannot be
  meaningful or worth any serious effort.

56
EGOISM AND A MEANINGFUL LIFE I

• Singer says that his point of view is
  speculative, and that you may accept it or
  reject it to the extent that it agrees with your
  own observation and introspection.
• Singer says that his next point is even more
  speculative, which is that to find meaning in
  life one must not only go beyond the short term
  interests of the psychopath, but must also go
  beyond egoists who, although they have long-term
  interests, are only concerned with their own
  interests and care nothing for the interests of
  others.

57
EGOISM AND A MEANINGFUL LIFE II

• Singer does not find the longer term interests of
  the egoist satisfying since he wonders what mere
  self-interest amounts to, what does it add up to
  in the end?
• When everything in our interests has been
  achieved, do we just sit back and be happy?
  Could we be happy in this way?
• Singer notes that retirement is a problem for
  many people simply because they find it difficult
  just to sit back and be happy after reaching
  certain goals, they cannot enjoy themselves
  without a purpose in life.
• It seems then as if we then need new goals, a new
  purpose in life, or we may risk boredom and
  unhappiness.

58
THE ETHICAL POINT OF VIEW I

• Singer recommends what he calls the ethical point
  of view, and this is where ethics comes into the
  problem of living a meaningful life.
• The ethical point of view requires us to go
  beyond a personal point of view to the standpoint
  of an impartial spectator.
• Singer Thus looking at things ethically is a
  way of transcending our inward-looking concerns
  and identifying ourselves with the most objective
  point of view possible - with, as Henry Sidgwick
  put it, the point of view of the universe.

59
MYSELF AND OTHERS

• While recommending the ethical point of view,
  Singer says that there is nothing irrational
  about being concerned with the quality of ones
  own existence in a way that one is not concerned
  with the quality of existence of other people.
• But even so, he says that as rational beings we
  may also consider issues which are of broader
  concern than simple concern with the quality of
  our own lives, and this would include concern for
  the quality of life of other people.

60
THE ETHICAL POINT OF VIEW II

• In adopting the ethical point of view a person
  becomes more aware of his situation in the world,
  and more reflective about the meaning and purpose
  of his life.
• For Singer, the ethical point of view offers a
  meaning and purpose in life that one does not
  grow out of, as a person may grow out of other
  things in tiring of them.
• And Singer says, that one cannot grow out of the
  ethical point of view until all ethical tasks
  have been accomplished. That is, until all evil
  is removed, justice and fairness abound, and
  everyone has equal opportunities to pursue her
  goals.