How Are We to Live?: Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest

great book living up to my execptations. It arrived at the correct time, so i cant complain, just love it.

The author raises the question of ethics in our overwhelmingly individualistic society. Unlike at least one other reviewer of this book, I didn't feel that it is a sermon in disguise to promote Singer's ideas about animal welfare, although it does receive mention several times. The book is a good synthesis of carefully chosen historically significant events and social analyses (e.g. the "Opening of Japan" at the Bay of Edo, and the culture of materialism, as well as foreign work ethics and so on). Singer's style is relaxed but not condescending. He argues in the end that although reality is relative, there is a sense in which that can be transcended to some degree. The idea is that as beings endowed with the gift of imagination, we are able to move in our minds beyond the relative reality, to observe that all beings suffer as we do personally. This slight glimpse of an objective truth that we permit ourselves to witness is a motivation and reason enough, argues Singer, for us to want to act ethically towards others.The book is a mild philosophical romp, with some ideas in ethics, biology and evolution receiving mention. In no place is the book overwhelming.I gave the book 4 stars because I don't think it is a masterpiece, and it doesn't make allowance for the fact that to some extent it is limited by its need to rationalise parts of human existence that don't necessarily warrant it or are capable of being rationalised. Nonetheless, one cannot write a book that accounts for the entire truth of human experience within the bounds of a light discussion.On a practical level, the book is about 350 pages, just larger than the average paperback with a medium sized print (I know some books have discouragingly small letters (some Penguin ones for instance)).I think it is very well worth reading, but don't expect it to be the best book on the topic of all time. Nonetheless, a good introduction, and even if you don't follow or buy into all the arguments Singer presents, there's plenty else you'll find out besides.

Singer argues cogently that as a social animal it is natural for us to care for others, and we actually enjoy a far greater sense of satisfaction from it, than from the inevitably futile striving to satisfy ourselves. The many examples of altruism and the anecdotes are all immensely uplifting and satisfying but in the end the purity of the message and the clarity of the argument is dogged by the author's inability to avoid grinding his own axe about animal welfare. As a result, it seems like a sermon in disguise. He argues against Kant's assertion that we have a duty to help others but in the end one is left with the impression that Singer is transforming his own heart-felt sense of duty into logical argument. This is a shame because any book that could convince us without any inducement of guilt, that helping others is helping ourselves would be a book everyone would want. My conclusion: A thought provoking read for anyone feeling disatisfied with the material life.

Singer tackles "the big one," the meaning of life, in this book, and damned if he doesn't figure it out. In my opinion. (Your mileage may vary.) His approach is take you through a few thousand years of philosophy/economics/political science to get to the answer that a life spent trying to help others and reduce suffering is really the most moral, and most fulfilling one. It's a fascinating, and important, book. OK. I do have one small quibble. (Forgive me, I'm a quibbler.) Singer, correctly, I think, sees some uses of psychotherapy as self-indulgent and an attempt to rationalize away the moral emptiness that comes from leading a materialistically oriented life. However, I think he underestimates the need for people to come to terms with the forces that create a self that can't keep its "owner" from suffering. You have to be able to help yourself as well as others. The process of individuation, of becoming your own creative person, is important in human happiness. It's not as moral as purely devoting yourself to others, but I think there is room for both. I don't think Singer would disagree (maybe he would?). That, I think minor, quibble aside, I think the book is a really cool exploration of a really important question that we all ask ourselves, but that few (non-religious types) have spent enough time thinking about. I, for one, am glad that Peter Singer is around and thinking about it.

This was my first book on ethics and it has successfully got me hooked. I am now about to begin Animal Liberation! Singer presents a very convincing argument for taking the ethical path and not ending up feeling lacking. There were many comments and even sections I felt compelled to underline and note the page numbers as they really struck a chord and I want to return to them to ponder further. He includes a little bit of everything, giving plenty ammunition for discussions. Excellent book, I have recommended it to almost everyone I know!

Singer compellingly shows how our misunderstanding of self-interest has led us to the brink of social and ecological disaster. He unmasks the errors that have led us down this path. Best of all, he offers an alternative -- a new understanding of self-interest, one that embraces altruism and ethical integrity. What a humane and reasonable book!

This may be the best book of moral philosophy ever written for a general audience. Singer covers a large number of topics, from feminist ethics to the prisoner's dilemma, in the course of presenting a graceful and compelling argument for the moral life.