Being provocative, advocacy, & the life you can save | Peter Singer (2019)

Peter Singer's Advocacy Strategy and Philosophy

• Singer does not deliberately court controversy for its own sake, but believes that provocative arguments with strong philosophical foundations are necessary to stimulate debate and expand the public discourse.
• Controversial positions, such as his views on euthanasia for severely disabled newborns, have paradoxically increased sales of his works (e.g., Practical Ethics) by generating media attention that exposes readers to his arguments on animal liberation and global poverty.
• Singer acknowledges strategic errors in his advocacy, specifically noting that he gave opponents more attack vectors than necessary, such as when reviewing a book on bestiality, which he admits he should have declined.
• He utilizes the "first-mover" strategy advocated by Cass Sunstein, where a philosopher with tenure says the "unthinkable" to create intellectual cover for others to express similar views without facing the same professional risks.
• Singer argues that while taboo enforcement prevents the spread of bad ideas, it can inadvertently empower demagogues who break those taboos to gain political power, citing the Trump phenomenon as an example of backlash against enforced silence.

The Effective Altruism (EA) Community and Strategic Focus

• Singer critiques the EA community for having a focus that is too narrow, arguing that relying solely on a small group of high-net-worth individuals and long-termism limits the movement's potential to transform philanthropy generally.
• He advocates for a broader EA movement that prioritizes global poverty and animal welfare as the primary entry points for new donors, as these causes have higher public appeal and allow for mass participation.
• While supporting long-termist work (e.g., AI safety, existential risks), Singer views it as a "modest investment" compared to the immediate impact of global poverty, cautioning against it becoming the sole "public face" of the movement.
• He suggests that the EA movement could benefit from splitting into distinct sub-movements (e.g., "Long-termists" vs. "Effective Altruists focused on poverty/animals") to clarify messaging, though he remains open to a unified movement if it facilitates cross-cause talent recruitment.
• Singer believes a broad EA movement acts as a "stumbling block" for some; he worries that the esoteric nature of existential risks may deter potential donors who are motivated by more intuitive causes like poverty or animal suffering.
• He expresses uncertainty about the efficacy of specific long-term interventions, noting that while asteroid defense and nuclear disarmament are concrete, the path to mitigating risks from superintelligent AI is currently unclear and speculative.

Philosophical Shifts and Moral Theory

• Singer has shifted his normative ethical theory from preference utilitarianism to hedonistic utilitarianism, arguing that states of consciousness (pleasure/pain) are more defensible than the satisfaction of preferences, especially if those preferences are based on flawed information or irrational desires.
• He moved from a non-cognitivist (anti-realist) framework, based on R.M. Hare's universal prescriptivism, to a form of non-naturalist moral realism, accepting that moral truths exist independently of human prescriptions.
• Regarding population ethics, Singer abandoned his earlier "person-affecting" view after Derek Parfit's criticism, now remaining uncertain but leaning toward the "Total View," which accounts for the loss of potential future lives in the face of extinction.
• Singer rejects the idea of abandoning consequentialism entirely, but proposes a hybrid model where strict consequentialist duties apply, bounded by "side constraints" or absolute rules (e.g., do not torture innocent people) that are rarely triggered in practice.
• He argues that moral mistakes often stem from relying on evolved or culturally conditioned intuitions that mislead in modern contexts (e.g., ignoring statistical lives or distant animals) rather than from strict adherence to rational theory.
• In response to moral uncertainty, Singer advocates for a risk-averse approach where individuals account for the possibility that their preferred moral theory might be wrong, potentially altering their resource allocation decisions (citing Toby Ord and Will MacAskill).

Specific Policy and Cause Evaluations

• Singer advises against advocating for "open borders" or mass immigration reform in the current political climate, arguing that the political backlash (e.g., supporting right-wing populists like Trump or Brexit) would cause net negative outcomes for climate action and immigrant safety.
• He distinguishes this from animal welfare advocacy, suggesting that while a backlash to abolishing factory farming is possible, the moral imperative and potential gains are sufficient to warrant continued activism on that front.
• Singer asserts that wild-caught animal consumption is less harmful than factory farming, provided the kill is humane and immediate, though he notes that fish often die painfully via suffocation or decompression in commercial fishing.
• He rejects the "better the worse" philosophy, arguing that making moral progress incrementally is generally superior to intentionally worsening conditions to trigger a revolution, though he acknowledges the complexity of political timing.
• Singer supports the continued research and funding of existential risks, including AI safety and nuclear security, but emphasizes that these should not crowd out the immediate, high-impact work of poverty alleviation and animal protection.

Community Dynamics and Future Outlook

• Singer anticipates that the impact of his updated 10th-anniversary edition of The Life You Can Save (released as free ebook/audiobook) will increase its reach, aiming to make his work on global poverty as impactful as his earlier work on animal liberation.
• He observes that the EA community has surprisingly experienced little internal conflict over resource allocation, suggesting a culture of intellectual reflection and a lack of impulsive behavior among members.
• Singer notes that his own philosophical evolution was driven by the realization that the linguistic constraints of universal prescriptivism could not adequately ground moral reasoning, leading him to seek a more robust realist foundation.
• He views the "demandingness" of morality as a practical barrier to mass movement participation, suggesting that allowing for "pet projects" and personal budgets is a necessary compromise to sustain long-term engagement.
• Singer predicts that as the EA movement grows, it will naturally develop sub-communities and conferences focused on specific causes (e.g., AI, biosecurity), though he sees value in maintaining a unified intellectual umbrella to prevent intellectual isolation.