Shipp 1

Isaiah Shipp
Professor Welch
Philosophy 1000
April 6, 2016
Buddha and Singer Comparison Final
For our final essay, I chose to compare and contrast two of some of the most famous philosopher
in history, Peter Singer and Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama). In my opinion, these two
philosophers have the same type of ideas, but express them in a very different way. Some
background on Pete Singer is, he is generally a very controversial, in your face philosopher. The
way Singer talks about his philosophy is, It is important to make people uncomfortable to raise
moral consciousness. Singer believes that we have an obligation to alleviate suffering; Singer
wants us to do this by giving away any money that isnt going towards are basic needs (water,
food, shelter) to people who are in need. This philosophy makes people enraged, or
uncomfortable, but that is all a part of Singers plan, the more outrages the statement, the more
attention it gets. However, Singer himself does not even live by this code, which implies that he
just wants to raise awareness. Buddha, one of the most loved and influential people in history
would agree with Singer's philosophy of Alleviating suffering though, he would get his point
across in a much different way. To start from the beginning, Buddha was raised in a lavished
palace, blocked away from death, illness, and aging, to only later find out that all of those things
are inevitable. Buddha decided that he would deprive himself of all worldly objects and live a
life of Asceticism (complete denial, only fasted and meditated). He went on to do other life
cycles until he reached nirvana, which means no more suffering. However Buddha postponed his
nirvana to stay and help others, this is called Bodhisattva. Buddha lived out the remaining of his
life by leading by example and giving wisdom to others. Buddha philosophy came down to the

Shipp 2
four noble truths. These truths were believed to lead any individual to live a life without
suffering (Nirvana). As you can see, both philosophers have the goal to alleviate suffering of all
beings, the difference is that Buddha practices what he preaches.
For question one, it asks if we have an ethical obligation with our money? Obviously, this
question comes directly from Peter Singer, so we already know that answer for him; however, I
think that his question poses a very interesting topic. I believe that Buddha would take it a step
forward and tell us to get rid of our money all together. Like stated before, Buddha is not some
peasant who never had money and does not know what it is like to be rich. Buddha leads by
example by showing that by giving up money will take you a step closer to your Nirvana. After
all, one of his four noble truths is suffering comes from being self-centered and money can do
that to you. Even though Peter Singe was the philosopher who came up with the statement, he
does not live by it, which makes me feel more confident in Buddha.
The next question I was faced with was Is it unethical to eat meat? Personally, I eat
meat on a daily basis and have never had a problem with it, but as you will see, both
philosophers will have a problem with this. Although both do agree that eating meat is unethical,
they both have two different extremes on the question. Peter Singer's answer is, we need to
alleviate both the suffering of humans and animals; meaning, we should never kill an animal just
for the meat. Unlike the first question, Singer does practice what he preaches on the subject.
Buddha again would take this subject to a furthest extreme. In Buddhism, every single life has
meaning, including something as small as a fly. Buddha believes that once we die we come back
reincarnated as something else like a bug or animal. Therefore, Buddha would literally consider
every being around him as a friend or family member. To say that eating meat in Buddhism is

Shipp 3
unethical is a bit of an understatement, some may see it as a murder of an innocent life with the
same value of a human.
What is truth? I personally would answer by saying truth is in the eyes of the beholder.
I believe from what I have read and studied about Peter Singer is that he believes that truth is
whatever benefits the masses of people. Buddha, on the other hand, would have a different
approach. I believe Buddha would say that truth is whatever you believe, as long as it does not
infringe or hurt other people.. Can we ever have knowledge of truth? Yes, I think that every
person has already found that knowledge.
For question four Singer again would say that good behavior is whatever helps alleviate
others suffering, where as bad behavior is defined as whatever makes life worse for others.
Buddha would say something similar to Singer; we have an obligation to help people with our
behavior and make life better for them. I believe that good and bad behavior is determined by the
consequences that follows the action. If a mother claims that she can speak to God and God tells
her to drown her children, regardless how crazy that may seem; she genuinely had good
intentions to listen to God but had some serious consequences to face.
Is it less moral if we do the right action for the wrong reason? A perfect example of this is
given money to charity to cut your tax rate. Peter Singer would say that it is ten times more
moral to give money to charity for the wrong reason rather than not giving at all. As stated
before, Singer is a huge activist when it comes to giving money to those in need. Buddha,
however, would focus more on the person rather than the action. Buddha would want to get to
the center of why the person would not want to help, just out of the goodness of their heart.
Buddhism is built off the principle of giving up everything you are to become everything you
want to be. I personally find Singers view to be the better of the two. Why should anyone care if
3

Shipp 4
I am giving money to those in need to help myself and cut my taxes? It is not as if the money is
any different from that of a person with good intentions. I find it to be a lot less moral if a person
decided not to give to charity because they did not want to do it for the wrong reason.
Are bad actions that are carried out with good intent less moral; a good example of this is
Robin Hood who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. I believe both Buddha and Singer
would have the same answer to this question it depends on the intention.. If someone beats
their wife and thinks that it is for the better of the family, then in that case it does not apply.
When someone has to murder a home intruder in order to protect their family then that is
acceptable. However, Buddhism does not believe in killing anyone or anything under any
circumstances. So although both philosophers answers may differ in minor areas, the overall
answer is the same. If I were to choose one Singers view is more appealing to me.
What does the good life consist of? Peter Singer would say that his ideal life would be
without any suffering in the entire world. World hunger, disease, pain, and sadness would all not
exist in Singers idealistic world. Buddhas ideal life style would consist of everyone looking out
for each other and trying to make themselves, the environment, and others better every day. In
Buddhas four noble truths two of the point state that suffering is a part of existence and we can
uproot suffering if we were all not so self-centered. Out of the two, I believe that Singers is
more relatable to my ideal lifestyle. Although, both have similar point, Buddha believe that we
must give up all of our possessions to be happy. I do not agree with this specific point of
Buddhas ideal lifestyle.
What are the qualities of a superior individual? Peter Singer would say, a superior
individual would be someone who gives up all of their time and money to those who are less
fortunate. Buddha would say something similar to Singer but with a different spin on it. Buddha
4

Shipp 5
says a superior individual is someone who can give up all of their worldly possessions and time
and give it to those less fortunate. I personally agree with Singers point of view, just because I
do find it important to help others, but I do not find it necessary to give up all the things you find
enjoyment from.
How does happiness relate to living the good/moral life? What is happiness? I think that
living the good life is not all about yourself, you should be willing to alleviate the pain of others
while still finding pleasure in your life. Buddha, however, would disagree with me. He would say
that it is impossible to live the good life without first uprooting the egocentrism that comes from
possessions. Buddha thinks that possessions are only something that drags you down. If you are
being drug down you cannot reach nirvana. Singer would say that happiness and the moral life
go hand in hand. How can some be happy while other peoples basic needs are not met, Singer
would say. Singer does not believe that we should go to the extremes that Buddha talks about,
but only we should have our basic needs throughout our lifetime.
This question is similar to the previous one. Both philosophers would have the same
answer. In conclusion, both philosophers had very good philosophy that was similar and different
and times. Of the two I think Singerss Philosophy is a much more attainable way of life.
Currently people cannot just give up their possessions to find Nirvana. Although the idea and
intentions behind it are good, I do not, in any way, believe it. As a skeptical atheist, it was very
hard for me to relate to Buddhas philosophies, and ideology.