Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
APPLIED ETHICS
A ls o p u b lis h e d in this series
T h e C o n c e p t o f E v id e n ce , e d ite d b y P e te r A c h in s te in
T h e P h ilo so p h y o f L a w , e d ite d b y R o n a ld M . D w o rk in
M o r a l C o n ce p ts, e d ite d b y J o e l F e in b e r g
T h eo ries o f E th ics, e d ite d b y P h ilip p a F o o t
T h e P h ilo so p h y o f H istory , e d ite d b y P a trick G a r d in e r
T h e P h ilo s o p h y o f M in d , e d ite d b y J o n a th a n G lo v e r
K n o w le d g e an d B e lie f, e d ite d b y A . P h illip s G riffith s
S cien tific R e v o lu tio n s , e d ite d b y Ian H a c k in g
P h ilo so p h y an d E c o n o m ic T h eo ry , e d ite d b y F ra n k H a h n and
M a rtin H o llis
D iv in e C o m m a n d s a n d M ora lity, e d ite d b y P a u l H elm
H eg el, e d ite d b y M ic h a e l In w o o d
T h e P h ilo so p h y o f L in g u istics, e d ite d b y J e rro ld J. K a tz
R efe r e n ce an d M o d a lity , e d ite d b y L e o n a r d L in s k y
T h e P h ilo so p h y o f R e lig io n , e d ite d b y B a sil M itc h e ll
A e sth e tics , e d ite d by H a ro ld O s b o rn e
T h e T heory o f M ea n in g , e d ite d b y G . H . R . P a rk in so n
T h e P h ilo so p h y o f E d u ca tio n , e d ite d b y R . S . P e te rs
P o litic a l P h ilo s o p h y , e d ite d b y A n th o n y Q u in to n
P ra ctica l R ea so n in g , e d ite d b y Jo sep h R a z
T h e P h ilo so p h y o f S o cia l E x p la n a tio n , e d ite d b y A la n R y a n
T h e P h ilo so p h y o f L a n g u a g e, e d ite d b y J. R . S e a rle
S em a n tic S y n ta x, e d ite d b y P ie te r A . M . S e u re n
P h ilo s o p h ic a l L o g ic , e d ite d b y P . F . S tra w so n
L o c k e on H u m a n U nderstanding, e d ite d b y I. C . T ip to n
T h eo ries o f R ig h ts, e d ite d b y J e re m y W a ld ro n
K a n t on P u re R e a s o n , e d ite d b y R a lp h C . S. W a lk e r
Free W ill, e d ite d b y G a r y W a tso n
T h e P h ilo so p h y o f A c t io n , e d ite d b y A la n R . W h ite
L e ib n iz : M eta p h y sics an d P h ilo so p h y o f S cien c e, e d ite d by
R . S. W o o d h o u s e
O th er vo lu m es are in p reparation
APPLIED
ETHICS
E D IT E D B Y
P E T E R S IN G E R
i. D eath 9
by Thomas Nagel
ii . O f Suicide 19
by David Hum e
Bibliography 259
A p ril ig 86
i
■I
\
I
I
I
DEATH
TH OM AS N AG EL
3 I co n fess to b ein g tro u b led b y the above argu m en t, on the groun d that it is too
so p h isticated to exp lain the sim ple d ifferen ce b etw een ou r attitudes to pre-n atal and
posth u m ou s n o n -existen ce. F o r this reason I suspect that som eth in g essential is
o m itted from the acco u n t o f the badness o f death by an analysis w hich treats it as a
d ep riv atio n o f possibilities. M y suspicion is su ppo rted b y the fo llo w in g su ggestion o f
R o b e rt N o zick . W e co u ld im agin e discoverin g that p eople d ev e lo p e d from
in d ivid u al spores that had e xisted in d efin itely far in advan ce o f th eir birth. In this
fa n ta sy , birth n e ve r occurs n atu rally m ore than a h undred years b e fo re the p e rm a
n ent end o f the sp o re ’s existen ce. B u t then w e d iscover a w a y to trigg er the
p rem atu re hatch in g o f these sp o res, and p eo p le are born w h o h ave thousands o f
y ears o f active life b e fo re them . G iv e n such a situ ation , it w ou ld be possible to
im agin e o n e s e lf havin g com e into existen ce thousan d s o f years p reviou sly. If w e put
aside the qu estion w h eth er this w ou ld really be the sam e p erson , e ve n given the
id en tity o f the sp o re , then the co n seq u en ce appears to be that a p erson 's birth at a
given tim e c o u ld d ep rive him o f m any earlier years o f possible life. N ow w h ile it
w o u ld be cause for re gret that on e had been d ep rived o f all those possible years o f life
b y b ein g born to o la te, the feelin g w o u ld d iffer from that w hich m an y p eo p le h ave
a bou t d eath . I co n clu d e that som eth in g abou t the fu tu re prospect o f perm an en t
nothingness is not cap tu red b y the analysis in term s o f d en ied possibilities. If so, then
L u cre tiu s’ argum en t still aw aits an answ er. I suspect that it req u ires a gen eral
treatm en t o f the d ifferen ce b etw een past and fu tu re in our attitudes tow ard ou r ow n
lives. O u r attitu d es tow ard past and fu tu re pain are very d iffe re n t, for exam p le.
D e re k P arfit’s un pu blish ed w ritin gs on this to p ic h ave re v ea le d its d ifficu lty to m e.
DEATH 17
w hether it depends on what can naturally be hoped for. This seems
to me the most serious difficulty with the view that death is always
an evil. E ven if we can dispose o f the objections against admitting
m isfortune that is not experienced, or cannot be assigned to a
definite time in the person’s life, we still have to set som e limits on
how possible a possibility must be for its non-realization to be a
m isfortune (or good fortune, should the possibility be a bad one).
T h e death o f K eats at 24 is generally regarded as tragic; that of
T o lstoy at 82 is not. A lth ou gh they will both be dead for ever,
K e a ts’s death deprived him o f many years o f life which w ere
allow ed to T olstoy; so in a clear sense K ea ts’s loss was greater
(though not in the sense standardly em ployed in mathem atical
com parison betw een infinite quantities). H ow ever, this does not
prove that T o lsto y ’s loss was insignificant. Perhaps w e record an
objection only to evils which are gratuitously added to the inevit
able; the fact that it is worse to die at 24 than at 82 does not imply
that it is not a terrible thing to die at 82, or even at 806. The question
is w hether we can regard as a m isfortune any lim itation, like
m ortality, that is normal to the species. Blindness or near-blindness
is not a m isfortune for a m ole, nor would it be for a man, if that were
the natural condition o f the human race.
T h e trouble is that life fam iliarizes us with the goods o f which
death deprives us. W e are already able to appreciate them , as a
m ole is not able to appreciate vision. If w e put aside doubts about
their status as goods and grant that their quantity is in part a
function o f their duration, the question remains w hether death, no
m atter when it occurs, can be said to deprive its victim o f what is in
the relevant sense a possible continuation o f life.
T h e situation is an am biguous one. O bserved from without,
human beings obviously have a natural life-span and cannot live
much longer than a hundred years. A m an’s sense o f his own
experience, on the other hand, does not em body this idea o f a
natural limit. His existence defines for him an essentially open-
ended possible future, containing the usual m ixture o f goods and
evils that he has found so tolerable in the past. H aving been
gratuitously introduced to the world by a collection o f natural,
historical, and social accidents, he finds him self the subject o f a life,
with an indeterm inate and not essentially limited future. V iew ed in
i8 THOMAS NAGEL
this w ay, death, no m atter how inevitable, is an abrupt cancellation
o f indefinitely extensive possible goods. Norm ality seems to have
nothing to do with it, for the fact that we will all inevitably die in a
few score years cannot by itself imply that it would not be good to
live longer. Suppose that we were all inevitably going to die in
agony— physical agony lasting six months. W ould inevitability
m ake that prospect any less unpleasant? A nd why should it be
different for a deprivation? If the normal life-span w ere a thousand
years, death at 80 w ould be a tragedy. A s things are, it m ay just be a
m ore widespread tragedy. If there is no limit to the amount o f life
that it w ould be good to have, then it may be that a bad end is in
store for us all.
II
OF SUICIDE
D A V ID HUM E
P u b lish ed posth u m o u sly in 1784 and reprin ted from The P h ilo so p h ica l W orks o f
D a v id H u m e , ed. T . H . G r e e n and T . H . G o sse (L o n d o n , 1874-5).
1 D e D iv in . lib. ii. 72, 150.
20 DAVID HU M E
every scene, in every incident o f life; even sleep itself, which
banishes all other cares o f unhappy m ortals, affords to him matter
o f new terror; while he exam ines his dream s, and finds in those
visions o f the night prognostications o f future calam ities. I may add,
that th o ’ death alone can put a full period to his m isery, he dares not
fly to this refuge, but still prolongs a m iserable existence from a vain
fear lest he offend his m aker, by using the pow er, with which that
beneficent being has endow ed him. The presents o f G o d and nature
are ravished from us by his cruel enem y; and notwithstanding that
one step w ould rem ove us from the regions o f pain and sorrow , her
m enaces still chain us down to a hated being, which she herself
chiefly contributes to render m iserable.
’Tis observed by such as have been reduced by the calam ities of
life to the necessity o f em ploying this fatal rem edy, that if the
unseasonable care o f their friends deprive them o f that species of
D eath , which they proposed to them selves, they seldom venture
upon any other, or can summon up so much resolution a second
tim e, as to execute their purpose. So great is our horror o f death,
that when it presents itself, under any form , besides that to which a
man has endeavoured to reconcile his im agination, it acquires new
terrors and overcom es his feeble courage: B ut when the m enaces o f
superstition are joined to this natural tim idity, no w onder it quite
deprives men o f all pow er over their lives, since even many
pleasures and enjoym ents, to which we are carried by a strong
propensity, are torn from us by this inhuman tyrant. L et us here
endeavour to restore men to their native liberty by exam ining all the
com m on arguments against Suicide, and shewing that that action
m ay be free from every im putation o f guilt or blam e, according to
the sentim ents o f all the antient philosophers.
If Suicide be crim inal, it must be a transgression o f our duty either
to G o d , our neighbour, or ourselves.— T o prove that suicide is no
transgression o f our duty to G o d , the follow ing considerations may
perhaps suffice. In order to govern the material world, the alm ighty
C reato r has established general and im mutable laws by which all
bodies, from the greatest planet to the smallest particle o f m atter,
are m aintained in their proper sphere and function. T o govern the
animal w orld, he has endow ed all living creatures with bodily and
m ental powers; with senses, passions, appetites, m em ory and
OF S U I C I D E 21
one w ho, without apparent reason, has had recourse to it, was curst
with such an incurable depravity or gloom iness o f tem per as must
poison all enjoym ent, and render him equally m iserable as if he had
been loaded with the most grievous m isfortunes.— If suicide be
supposed a crim e, ’tis only cowardice can impel us to it. If it be no
crim e, both prudence and courage should engage us to rid ourselves
at once o f existence, when it becom es a burthen. ’Tis the only way
that w e can then be useful to society, by setting an exam ple, which,
if im itated, w ould preserve to every one his chance for happiness in
life and w ould effectually free him from all danger or m isery.4
A num ber o f points need to be m ade here. The first is that it is not
exactly correct to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does
nothing, for he does do one thing that is very important: he lets the
patient die. ‘Letting som eone d ie’ is certainly different, in some
respects, from other types o f action— m ainly in that it is a kind of
action that one m ay perform by way o f not perform ing certain other
actions. F or exam ple, one may let a patient die by way o f not giving
m edication, just as one m ay insult som eone by w ay o f not shaking
his hand. But for any purpose o f moral assessment, it is a type of
action none the less. The decision to let a patient die is subject to
m oral appraisal in the same way that a decision to kill him would be
subject to moral appraisal: it may be assessed as wise or unwise,
com passionate or sadistic, right or wrong. If a doctor deliberately
let a patient die who was suffering from a routinely curable illness,
the doctor w ould certainly be to blame for what he had done, just as
he w ould be to blame if he had needlessly killed the patient.
Ch arges against him would then be appropriate. If so, it w ould be
no defence at all for him to insist that he didn’t ‘do anything’ . He
w ould have done som ething very serious indeed, for he let his
patient die.
Fixing the cause o f death m ay be very important from a legal
A C T IV E A N D P A S S I V E E U T H A N A S I A 35
point o f view , for it may determ ine whether criminal charges are
brought against the doctor. But I do not think that this notion can be
used to show a moral difference betw een active and passive
euthanasia. T he reason why it is considered bad to be the cause of
som eone’s death is that death is regarded as a great evil— and so it
is. H ow ever, if it has been decided that euthanasia— even passive
euthanasia— is desirable in a given case, it has also been decided
that in this instance death is no greater an evil than the patient’s
continued existence. A n d if this is true, the usual reason for not
wanting to be the cause o f som eone’s death simply does not apply.
Finally, doctors m ay think that all o f this is only o f academ ic
interest— the sort o f thing that philosophers may w orry about but
that has no practical bearing on their own work. A fte r all, doctors
must be concerned about the legal consequences o f what they do,
and active euthanasia is clearly forbidden by the law. But even so,
doctors should also be concerned with the fact that the law is forcing
upon them a m oral doctrine that may be indefensible, and has a
considerable effect on their practices. O f course, most doctors are
not now in the position o f being coerced in this m atter, for they do
not regard them selves as m erely going along with what the law
requires. R ather, in statem ents such as the A M A policy statem ent
that I have quoted, they are endorsing this doctrine as a central
point o f m edical ethics. In that statem ent, active euthanasia is
condem ned not m erely as illegal but as ‘contrary to that for which
the m edical profession stands’ , whereas passive euthanasia is
approved. H ow ever, the preceding considerations suggest that
there is really no moral difference betw een the two, considered in
them selves (there m ay be im portant moral differences in some
cases in their consequences, but, as I pointed out, these differences
m ay m ake active euthanasia, and not passive euthanasia, the
m orally preferable option). So, whereas doctors may have to
discriminate betw een active and passive euthanasia to satisfy the
law, they should not do any m ore than that. In particular, they
should not give the distinction any added authority and weight by
writing it into official statem ents of m edical ethics.
IV
A c e r ta in m an w e n t d o w n fro m J e ru sa le m to J e rich o , a n d fe ll a m o n g
th ie v e s , w h ich strip p e d him o f his ra im e n t, and w o u n d e d him , and
d e p a r te d , le a v in g him h a lf d e a d .
52 J U D I T H J A R V IS T H O M S O N
A n d b y c h a n c e th e re c a m e d o w n a c e rta in p rie st th at w a y ; and w h e n he
sa w h im , h e p a ssed b y o n th e o th e r side.
A n d lik e w is e a L e v ite , w h e n he w a s at th e p la c e , c a m e a n d lo o k e d on
h im , and p a ssed b y on th e o th e r side.
B u t a c e r ta in S a m a rita n , as h e jo u r n e y e d , c a m e w h e r e h e w a s; and w h en
h e sa w him h e h a d c o m p a ssio n on him .
A n d w e n t to h im , a n d b o u n d up his w o u n d s , p o u rin g in o il and w in e , and
se t him on his o w n b e a s t, a n d b ro u g h t him to an in n , and to o k c a re o f him .
A n d on th e m o rro w , w h e n h e d e p a rte d , h e to o k o u t tw o p e n c e , a n d g a v e
th e m to th e h o st, and said u n to him , ‘T a k e c a re o f him ; and w h a ts o e v e r
th o u sp e n d e st m o re , w h e n I c o m e a g a in , I w ill re p a y t h e e .’
( L u k e 10: 3 0 -5 )
T h e G o o d Sam aritan went out o f his w ay, at some cost to him self, to
help one in need o f it. W e are not told what the options w ere, that is,
w hether or not the priest and the L evite could have helped by doing
less than the G o o d Sam aritan did, but assuming they could have,
then the fact they did nothing at all shows they w ere not even
M inim ally D ecent Sam aritans, not because they w ere not
Sam aritans, but because they w ere not even m inimally decent.
T h ese things are a m atter o f degree, o f course, but there is a
difference, and it com es out perhaps most clearly in the story of
K itty G en o vese, w ho, as you will rem em ber, was m urdered while
thirty-eight people watched or listened, and did nothing at all to
help her. A G o o d Sam aritan w ould have rushed out to give direct
assistance against the m urderer. O r perhaps we had better allow
that it w ould have been a Splendid Samaritan who did this, on the
ground that it w ould have involved a risk o f death for himself. But
the thirty-eight not only did not do this, they did not even trouble to
pick up a phone to call the police. M inim ally D ecent Samaritanism
w ould call for doing at least that, and their not having done it was
monstrous.
A fte r telling the story o f the G o o d Sam aritan, Jesus said ‘G o , and
do thou lik ew ise. ’ Perhaps he meant that we are m orally required to
act as the G o o d Sam aritan did. Perhaps he was urging people to do
m ore than is m orally required o f them. A t all events it seem s plain
that it was not m orally required o f any o f the thirty-eight that he
rush out to give direct assistance at the risk o f his own life, and that it
is not m orally required o f anyone that he give long stretches o f his
A D E F E N C E OF A B O R T I O N 53
life— nine years or nine months— to sustaining the life o f a person
who has no special right (we w ere leaving open the possibility o f
this) to dem and it.
Indeed, with one rather striking class o f exceptions, no one in any
country in the world is legally required to do anywhere near as much
as this for anyone else. The class o f exceptions is obvious. M y main
concern here is not the state o f the law in respect to abortion, but it
is w orth drawing attention to the fact that in no state in this country
is any man com pelled by law to be even a M inim ally D ecent
Sam aritan to any person; there is no law under which charges could
be brought against the thirty-eight who stood by while K itty
G en o vese died. B y contrast, in most states in this country wom en
are com pelled by law to be not m erely M inim ally D ecent
Sam aritans, but G o o d Sam aritans to unborn persons inside them.
This d oesn’t by itself settle anything one way or the other, because it
m ay well be argued that there should be laws in this country— as
there are in many E uropean countries— com pelling at least M ini
m ally D ecent Sam aritanism .8 But it does show that there is a gross
injustice in the existing state o f the law. A n d it shows also that the
groups currently working against liberalization o f abortion laws, in
fact w orking tow ard having it declared unconstitutional for a state
to perm it abortion, had better start w orking for the adoption of
G o o d Sam aritan laws generally, or earn the charge that they are
acting in bad faith.
I should think, m yself, that M inim ally D ecent Sam aritan laws
w ould be one thing, G o o d Sam aritan laws quite another, and in fact
highly im proper. B ut we are not here concerned with the law. W hat
w e should ask is not w hether anybody should be com pelled by law
to be a G o o d Sam aritan, but whether we must accede to a situation
in which som ebody is being com pelled— by nature, perhaps— to be
a G o o d Sam aritan. W e have, in other words, to look now at third-
party interventions. I have been arguing that no person is m orally
required to m ake large sacrifices to sustain the life o f another who
has no right to dem and them , and this even where the sacrifices do
not include life itself; we are not m orally required to be G o o d
AB O R T IO N A N D IN FA NT IC ID E 1
M IC H A E L T O O L E Y
I. A B O R T IO N A N D IN F A N T IC ID E
2 Judith Jarvis T h o m a s, pp. 3 7-5 6 , a b o v e , argues w ith great force and in gen u ity
that this con clu sio n is m istaken. I w ill com m en t on h er argum ent later in this paper.
3 W h ile this is the position con servatives tend to h old , it is not cle a r that it is the
position th ey ou gh t to h old. F o r if the foetu s is a person it is far from clea r th at it is
perm issible to d estroy it to save the m oth er. T w o m oral principles lend support to the
v iew that it is the foetu s w hich sh ou ld live. F irst, o th er things bein g e q u a l, should not
on e giv e som eth in g to a person w h o has had less rather than to a person w h o has had
m o re ? T h e m oth er has had a ch an ce to live, w h ile the foetu s has n ot. T h e ch oice is
ABORTION AN D IN FA N TIC ID E 59
person, how can it be seriously wrong to destroy it? W hy w ould one
need to point to special circumstances to justify such action? The
upshot is that there is no room for a m oderate position on the issue
o f abortion such as one finds, for exam ple, in the M odel Penal C ode
recom m endations.4
A sid e from the light it m ay shed on the abortion question, the
issue o f infanticide is both interesting and important in its own right.
T h e theoretical interest has been m entioned: it forces one to face up
to the question o f what m akes som ething a person. T h e practical
im portance need not be laboured. M ost people would prefer to
raise children who do not suffer from gross deform ities or from
severe physical, em otional, or intellectual handicaps. If it could be
shown that there is no m oral objection to infanticide the happiness
o f society could be significantly and justifiably increased.
Infanticide is also o f interest because o f the strong em otions it
arouses. T he typical reaction to infanticide is like the reaction to
incest or cannibalism , or the reaction o f previous generations to
m asturbation or oral sex. The response, rather than appealing to
carefully form ulated m oral principles, is primarily visceral. W hen
philosophers them selves respond in this w ay, offering no argu
ments, and dismissing infanticide out o f hand, it is reasonable to
suspect that one is dealing with a taboo rather than with a rational
prohibition.5 1 shall attem pt to show that this is in fact the case.
thus b e tw e e n the givin g the m o th er m ore o f an op p ortu n ity to live w h ile givin g the
fo e tu s none at all and givin g the foetu s an o p p o rtu n ity to e n jo y life w h ile not giving
the m oth er a fu rth er o p p o rtu n ity to do so. S u rely fairness req u ires the latter.
S e co n d ly , sin ce the fo etu s has a g re a te r life e x p e cta n cy than the m oth er, on e is in
e ffe ct d istribu ting m ore go od s b y ch o osin g the life o f the foetu s o v e r the life o f the
m oth er.
T h e position I am here reco m m en d in g to the con servative should not be con fu sed
w ith the official C a th o lic position. T h e C a th o lic C h u rch holds that it is seriou sly
w ro n g to kill a fo etu s d irectly even if failu re to do so w ill result in the death o f both the
m o th er and the foetu s. Th is perverse valu e ju d g em e n t is not part o f the co n se rv a
tiv e ’s position.
4 S ection 230.3 o f the A m e rica n L a w Institu te's M o d el Pena l C o d e (P h ilad elp h ia,
1962). T h e re is som e in terestin g, th ough at tim e con fu sed , discussion o f the p rop osed
c o d e in M o d el P en a l C o d e— Tentative D raft N o. 9 (P h ilad elp h ia, 1959), pp. 146-62.
5 A clea r exa m p le o f such an unw illingness to en tertain serio u sly the possibility
th at m oral ju d g em e n ts w id ely a ccep ted in o n e 's ow n society m ay n everth eless be
in correct is p ro vid ed b y R o g e r W e rth e im e r’s superficial dism issal o f in fanticide on
p a ges 69-70 o f his article ‘ U n d erstan d in g the A b o rtio n A rg u m e n t’ , P hilo so p hy and
P u b lic A ffairs 1. no. 1 (F all, 19 71): 6 7-95.
6o MICHAEL TOOLEY
II. t e r m in o l o g y : ‘pe r so n ’ v e r su s ‘h u m a n b e in g ’
12 I b id .. p. 65.
W e rth e im e r, U n d erstan d in g the A b o rtio n A rg u m e n t', p. 78.
ABORTION AND INFA NTICID E 63
III. TH E B A S IC IS S U E ! W H E N IS A M E M B E R O F T H E
S P E C IE S H O M O S A P I E N S A P E R S O N ?
PRO POSALS
I now want to com pare the line o f dem arcation I am proposing with
the cut-off points traditionally advanced in discussions o f abortion.
M y fundam ental claim will be that none o f these cut-off points can
be defended by appeal to plausible, basic moral principles. The
main suggestions as to the point past which it is seriously wrong to
destroy som ething that will develop into an adult m em ber o f the
species H om o sapiens are these: (a) conception; (b) the attainm ent
o f human form ; (c) the achievem ent o f the ability to m ove about
spontaneously; (d) viability; (e) b irth .19 The corresponding moral
principles suggested by these cut-off points are as follows: ( i) It is
seriously wrong to kill an organism , from a zygote on, that belongs
to the species H om o sapiens. (2) It is seriously wrong to kill an
organism that belongs to H om o sapiens and that has achieved
human form . (3) It is seriously wrong to kill an organism that is a
m em ber o f H om o sapiens and that is capable o f spontaneous
m ovem ent. (4) It is seriously wrong to kill an organism that belongs
to H om o sapiens and that is capable o f existing outside the wom b.
(5) It is seriously wrong to kill an organism that is a m em ber of
H om o sapiens that is no longer in the wom b.
M y first com m ent is that it would not do simply to omit the
reference to m em bership in the species H om o sapiens from the
above principles, with the exception o f principle (2). For then
the principles w ould be applicable to animals in general, and one
would be forced to conclude that it was seriously wrong to abort a
cat foetus, or that it was seriously wrong to abort a m otile cat foetus,
and so on.
T h e second and crucial com ment is that none o f the five principles
given above can plausibly be view ed as a basic moral principle. T o
accept any o f them as such would be akin to accepting as a basic
m oral principle the proposition that it is m orally perm issible to
enslave black m em bers o f the species H om o sapiens but not white
V. R E F U T A T IO N O F T H E C O N S E R V A T IV E P O S IT IO N
V I. SU M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S IO N S
JU D G E M E N T D A Y
L O U IS PA SCA L
J U D G E M E N T D A Y OR TH E H A N D W R IT IN G O N T H E W A L L *
G ood evening. This is the first time I’ve spoken before a college
audience, and therefore I would like to take advantage of your
presence to ask you a few questions before I begin on my prepared
speech. Principally I’m interested in asking these questions for my
own enlightenm ent, but I hope m any o f you will find your answers
interesting also. B asically I want to know how m orally com m itted
the students at a typical ‘g oo d ’ school are, and while I know an
audience o f several hundred from one school is neither large
enough nor diverse enough to give an especially accurate picture,
still the results should provide a rough indication o f where the real
truth lies. T h a t’s sort o f an interesting juxtaposition o f words.
‘Truth lies’ I mean.
A n y w a y , as I said, I’m interested in knowing how m orally
com m itted you are. The reasons for my curiosity are surely evident:
in tod ay’s world o f racial prejudice, V ietnam , and above all, the
m iseries o f overpopulation, it will take an uncom m only dedicated
and selfless generation to grapple with these issues successfully. I
must say at the outset, I am pessimistic. A t any rate, primarily what
I want to find out tonight is how im portant it is to you for you to act
L o u is P ascal, ‘Jud gem en t D a y or T h e H an d w ritin g on the W a ll’ first a p p eared as
part o f a lo n g e r article in Inquiry 1980, V o l. 23, pp. 2 42 -5 1; ‘ O n G o o d n e ss, B adn ess
and In d iffe re n c e ’ and P ostscript are © 1986 L o u is Pascal. R ep rin ted b y perm ission
o f the author.
* T h is section is the transcript and the n ext section a discussion o f a speech on
o v erp o p u la tio n by W a lte r B ra d fo rd E llis, a too -little-k n o w n p io n e e r in the field o f
o v erp o p u la tio n . It w as d elive re d b e fo re an au d ien ce o f abou t 300 at C o lu m b ia
U n iv e rsity on 20 O c t. 1970. I w as am on g the au d ien ce and m ade a record in g. (It is
reprin ted h ere with his perm ission .) Som e o f the num bers h ave ch an ged in the
in terven in g years, but his ideas h ave not aged.
io 6 LOUIS PASCAL
according to your own definition o f right and wrong. In other words
I’m not interested in knowing what sort o f behaviour you think is
right or wrong but m erely how com m itted you are to living up to
w hatever standards o f right and wrong you possess.
I was trying to think a few minutes ago what questions I could ask
you to find out this inform ation, and it is very difficult to com e up
with anything satisfactory simply because individual standards of
right and w rong vary so m arkedly. I had to pick a situation which
seem s perhaps a little silly because it is so im probable, but that is
because I wanted as pure a case as possible— one which is in no way
connected with any existing world situation— so that your
prejudices and preconceived notions about a particular situation
will play no part in your answers.
I needed to find a situation in which every one o f you would agree
as to the proper course o f action and then ask: but which o f you
w ould do it even if it hurt you personally? Probably no situation
exists which w ould elicit your total agreem ent, but the one which I
have picked I think will com e as close as possible. M y hypothetical
circum stances are concerned with a person who murders innocent
people, and I suspect that nearly every one of you will agree that
that is wrong. So please now imagine yourself to be in an ancient
country which is ruled over by an evil king who has absolute pow er
o f life or death over all his subjects— including yourself. N ow this
king is very bored, and so for his amusem ent he picks 10 o f his
subjects, m en, w om en, and children, at random as well as an
eleventh man who is separate from the rest. N ow the king gives the
eleventh man a choice: he will either hang the 10 people picked at
random and let the eleventh go free, or he will hang the eleventh
man and let the other 10 go free. A n d the eleventh man must decide
which it is to be.
N ow if death is bad, then on an average 10 deaths must be 10
times as bad as one. So hopefully nearly all o f you will agree that the
eleventh man should give up his life in order that the other 10 might
live. But that is not the question I am asking you. I’m asking
w hether you would in fact m ake that sacrifice if you w ere the
eleventh man— if you really did have to decide whether you or they
w ould die. A n d you knew the king meant business because he did
this every year and som etim es killed the 10 people and other times
J U D G E M E N T DAY 107
the eleventh depending w holly upon what the eleventh had
decided.
N ow I am about to ask you for a show o f hands, but o f course I
realize that few o f you know yourselves so well that you can be
certain o f the correctness o f your answer— especially if your answer
is yes. So I sim ply will ask you to hold up your hand and answer yes if
you are any m ore than 50 per cent certain that you w ould m ake that
sacrifice. U nderstand?
A ll right, all yes answers, please raise your hands. L et me see,
that must be about a third o f you. T h a t’s m ore than I w ould have
guessed.
N ow let me ask only those who are reasonably certain— say 95 per
cent certain— that they w ould m ake the sacrifice to please raise their
hands.
Y e s. T h a t’s m ore like what I expected. T h a t’s at most a tenth o f
you. I have a feeling that most o f that tenth o f you are kidding
yourselves, but perhaps human beings aren’t as selfish as I have
always thought.
N ow just two m ore quick questions. Sam e situation except that
the king says he will let his 10 hostages go free if you will go to prison
for 20 years, otherwise he kills them . T h a t’s an easier question to be
sure o f your answer about than the previous one, so this time answer
yes only if you are quite certain— 95 per cent or better. A ll right,
everybody hold up his hand if he is at least 95 per cent sure he would
go to prison for 20 years in order to save 10 people’s lives.
W ell that looks like about three-quarters o f you. A gain I think
you have overly high opinions o f yourselves, or m aybe som e o f you
are too em barrassed to tell the truth, but I sincerely hope you are
correct in your self-assessments.
Just one question m ore now. The king says he will let his people
go if you will agree to give him all the m oney you have and all the
m oney you will m ake in the future, except o f course enough for you
to feed and house yourself and take care o f all the absolute
necessities. In other words he’s asking you to be poor, but not so
p oor that it impairs your health in any w ay. A gain I’m asking for at
least 95 per cent certainty. A ll in that category please hold up your
hands.
W ell that’s nearly every one o f you! I ’m very pleased; I hope you
io8 LOUIS PASCAL
m ean it. Perhaps in fact you do this time. A fte r all, since you have
the pow er to decide w hether 10 people die or w hether you give up
your m oney, if you m ade the other decision, you w ould be killing 10
people in order to keep m oney for yourself, and surely that is
m urder.
I see som e head-shaking— it looks as though a few o f you
disagree. T he king has said, kill these 10 people or I’ll take your
m oney. If you kill them , that is murder.
L o o k at it another way. If you are poor and kill 10 people in order
to steal their m oney, that is surely m urder. But m orally speaking,
that situation is exactly the same as this one. In both situations if the
p eople die, you will be rich; if they live, you will be poor, and it is
within your pow er to decide which it is to be. In either situation if
you decide that they should die in order that you can be rich, you
have put your happiness, or not actually even that, you have put
m aterial riches for yourself above 10 peo p le’s lives. That is the
moral error you have made and it is exactly the same for both cases.
O n e is as bad as the other and if one is murder so is the other.
A n y w ay , those are all the questions I wanted to ask you. I didn’t
m ean to spend as much time on them as I did, but at least from my
point o f view it was well worth the time. Thanks for your
indulgence, and also for your soul-searching— I guess those w eren ’t
easy questions to answer if you answered them honestly. Just be
happy it was a m ake-believe situation and none o f you is likely ever
to really be forced to m ake any o f those rather unpleasant decisions.
A n d now I’ll get on to what is supposed to be my topic:
overpopulation.
In 1650 the population o f the world was 500 million (500m.).
W ithin the next 50 years an absolute minimum o f 500m. people will
starve to death. D r Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford U niversity biologist
and leader in the population m ovem ent, says betw een 10m. and
20m. people starve to death every year right now. If you take the
sm aller figure and m ake the ridiculous assumption that it will not get
any larger in the near future, then you get the figure o f 500m. deaths
in the next 50 years. But it will get larger because in 35 years there
will be twice as many people trying to find food in a world which
today is so overpopulated that half o f all human beings are hungry.
Perhaps that figure o f 500m. is too large for you to grasp in
J U D G E M E N T DAY 109
ON G O O D N E SS, B A D N E S S , A N D IN D IF F E R E N C E
The Paymaster
A lth ou gh I have no facts or figures, still I find it reasonable to
suppose that the average citizen o f the typical underdeveloped
country works as hard as the average A m erican. Q uite possibly he
w orks harder. A t any rate it seems a little unlikely that the average
A m erican (or perhaps I had better say the average reader o f this
book) actually believes he is m ore im portant or worthy or w hatever
than the average A sian , A frica n , or Latin A m erican , and still m ore
unlikely that he could be correct in so believing. Surely the typical
A m erican , at least if he w ould stop to think about it, w ould admit
that he was no better a person and no harder a w orker than the
average A sia n , and that their extrem e difference in station sprung
w holly and sim ply from the accident o f the o n e’s being born in
J U D G E M E N T DA Y 113
A m erica and the oth er’s in A sia. So why should one get all the
m oney while the other starves?
Im agine a factory-ow ner who hires 45 people to w ork for him. A ll
the em ployees w ork equally hard, but when time com es to pay
th em , the ow ner entrusts all their salaries to 1 o f them and (for some
strange reason) leaves it totally up to this 1 w orker how much each
o f the others shall be paid. W hat would you think o f that w orker if
he kept all or so nearly all the m oney for him self that the other 44
w ere always in dire poverty and 10 o f them eventually died of
starvation? Is he not guilty (m orally if not legally) o f stealing the
others’ m oney; and if he knew some w ould die because o f his theft,
is he not also guilty o f m urder? A n d is not this the situation of the
average A m erican— by an odd quirk o f fate entrusted with the
salaries o f 45 human beings and em pow ered to dispense the money
at his whim ? A n d keeping all o f it for him self,2 leaving them to
starve? Killing them in order to steal their m oney? If he does not
want to be guilty o f these charges, then let him give them back their
m oney, or else explain how by keeping it nearly all for him self, he
has distributed it fairly— why he deserves to bask while they grovel.
Thus we have, I think, a rather com plete refutation o f those
strange people who think that life is nice. In the first place, life is
clearly not nice for that substantial proportion o f m ankind (soon to
be a m ajority)3 who must live from day to day from hand to mouth
for ever on the verge or over the verge o f starvation. A sk some o f
the thousands who starve each day how much they en joy the
beautiful birds and flowers and trees. A sk them their opinion of
G o d ’s love and His tender m ercy. O r if perchance you don’t believe
in G o d , then ask them their opinion o f the love and tender m ercy of
their fellow human beings, the rich gods across the sea who couldn’t
care less about their sufferings— at any rate not enough to go out of
2 A c tu a lly not q u ite all th e m on ey w as given to him origin ally— he k eep s all he is
p h ysically able to k ee p . W hich o f cou rse raises the q uestion: if a b so lu tely all o f it had
b e en given to h im . h ow m uch w ou ld he then return to the oth ers? E x a ctly as m uch as
w as a ctu a lly not given to him to begin w ith?
3 N ote that it n e ed n ’ t be a n yw h ere n ear a m ajo rity to support m y case: the
gre a te st so rrow s in life are m any tim es as intense and. excep t w h en fo llo w e d by
d ea th , m any tim es as lasting as the greatest jo y s. A n d w hile the su p rem ely m iserable
p e o p le are so p le n tifu l, I h ave n ever m et a su p rem ely happ y p erson. T h e happiest
p e o p le o f all e n jo y o n ly very m o derate d egrees o f happiness.
H 4 LOUIS PASCAL
their w ay to help them . A s k them those questions. Th ey count
too.
W hat does a beautiful bird mean beside a starving child?
A n d as though this w ere not sufficient, recall the m aterial a
couple o f paragraphs above. If you are part o f that small portion o f
hum anity who are to a significant degree happy, and if your
happiness is to any extent at all dependent upon material goods or
leisure tim e, then your happiness is bought at the expense o f the
m isery, degradation, and the very lives o f your fellow human
beings. H ow many people had to die and how m any people had to
suffer in order for you to en joy that wealth and that leisure? H ow
m any people could you have saved had you not preferred your
com fort to their lives?
T here is so very little happiness; and even what there is, is not a
beautiful thing— it is the happiness o f successful m urderers and
rapists. This is not a pretty world.
I think we have arrived now at a point where we are able to
form ulate a general statem ent o f m oral principle, sort o f analogous
to the G olden Rule: B y the various actions a person m ay take at any
given m om ent, he has the pow er to bring about various conse
quences. T he action which he should take is the one which in the
long run in his opinion will result in the least total ‘bad ’ and the most
total ‘g o o d ’ . (B y ‘bad ’ we mean certainly unhappiness, perhaps
death. B y ‘g o o d ’ we mean happiness, at least for the present.) A n y
other act is m orally w rong, and the degree o f wrongness depends on
the degree to which the rule is violated .4 T here must be noted one
possible exception to the rule: it may well be that a person has the
right to cause as much unhappiness to him self as he wishes.
4 In o rd er to k ee p the statem ent o f the principle rela tively sim ple, I have
som ew h at b lu rred the d istinction b etw een w ron gn ess in an act and w ron gn ess in the
person p erfo rm in g the act. T h u s, if w e had w an ted to speak o f go o d and bad acts, w e
sh ou ld h ave om itted all referen ce to the p ro ta go n ist’s opin ion and in serted in ou r
paren thesis defining g o o d and bad: ‘o r w h atever the true definitions o f go o d and bad
a re ’ . H ad w e w an ted to speak o n ly o f go o d and bad p eo p le, w e should h ave inserted:
‘o r w h a te v e r the p rotago n ist sin cerely b e lieves to be the true definitions o f go o d and
b a d '. T h is latter case is grea tly co m p lica ted , h o w e v e r, by a n otab le ten den cy for
p e o p le ’s ‘sin ce re ’ b eliefs to suit th eir ow n best interests and even to ch an ge, w h en
circu m stan ces ch a n g e , so that both interests and con scien ce m ay still be served.
D e sp ite these d ifficu lties and m y blurrin g, the distinction is an im portant on e and
m ust be k ep t alw ays in m ind.
J U D G E M E N T DAY 115
W ritten in this w ay, w e can see clearly why the sins o f omission
are as serious as those o f commission: there is really no such thing as
omission. T here are always choices to be m ade; it is im possible not
to choose. If the passage in the speech com paring a person who lets
10 p eople die rather than give the king his m oney with a person who
kills 10 people to steal their m oney wasn’t clear before, it should be
now.
O ffh and, I can think o f only three ways in which the rule is
com m only violated. People som etim es violate the rule to favour
them selves, som etim es they violate it to favour their friends,
fam ilies, countries, churches, and other people or institutions they
are loyal to, and som etim es they violate it to hurt those they dislike.
A ll these practices are totally indefensible, and in fact all the
objections I can think o f which might be raised are extrem ely
sim ple-m inded.5
A long tim e ago I used to think that if I could get through life
without doing any harm, I at least would not be a bad person. If the
world ended up being no worse o ff for my having been born, I would
be satisfied. W e can now see, how ever, that that is an extrem ely
erroneous, albeit very seductive, way o f thinking. The ‘statem ent o f
m oral principle’ m akes it clear that this w ay o f thinking is incorrect,
but I will give a quick exam ple none the less to m ake sure this
m isconception is thoroughly debunked.
Im agine you are w alking along a river bank when you com e upon
a man drowning just a few feet o ff shore. T here is a rope lying on the
bank, but you do not throw it to him because you want to watch him
drown. In my b o ok , you are as much a m urderer as if he had by
valiantly struggling made it to the bank, and you had pushed him
back in. A n d yet you have done no harm if you look at it from a
I think it should be clear from these data that most o f the world is
p er ce n t, w hich represen ts a d ou blin g tim e o f 41 years. T h e 1986 U S d ou blin g tim e is
still abo u t 70 years, th ough the figure is on ly approxim ate becau se o f large
u n certain ties abou t the e xte n t o f im m igration.
7 E h rlich , D r Paul R ., The P opulation B o m b (N e w Y o r k , 19 7 1, p. 19 (revised
e d n .)). U n fo rtu n a te ly , E h rlich d oes not give the sou rce for his data. A m ore recent
p a p er b y D a v id P im en tel et al. ( ‘ L an d D e grad atio n : E ffe c ts on F o o d and E n e rg y
R e so u rc e s', S cien ce, v o l. 194, p. 154, 1976) rep o rts, ‘ A ll nations e xcep t the U .S .,
C a n a d a , A u stra lia , N ew Z e a la n d , A rg e n tin a , and T h a ilan d are con sisten t net food
im p o rte rs.’ H e d oes give a sou rce ( Y ea rb o ok o f International Trade Statistics ( U N ,
1974, v o l. 1)). B u t it is not cle a r to me how on e w ou ld use that sou rce to draw his
co n clu sio n , b ecau se w eigh ts o f fo o d s are o ften not giv e n , o n ly the m on etary v alu e . It
ap p ears o n e w o u ld first h ave to estim ate the w eigh t from the v a lu e , as m on etary
valu e b ears v ery little relation to fo o d v a lu e , and th en on e w ou ld h ave to translate the
w e igh t in to d ifferen t fo o d v alu es fo r d ifferen t foo d s: a cou n try w h ich im ports 1,000
tons o f w h eat and exp o rts 1,500 tons o f lettu ce is a net fo o d im porter.
A nu m b er o f cou n tries, such as E n gla n d and M o ro c co , m ust im port substantial
p rop ortion s o f th eir total fo o d su pply. F o r in stan ce, ‘T h e N eth erlan d s . . . im ports
a b o u t 5 0 % o f its w h ea t, 100% o f its rice, 7 5 % o f its o th er ce re als, all o f its steel,
an tim on y, b au x ite , ch rom ium , co p p er, gold , le a d , m agn esite, m an gan ese, m ercury,
m o ly b d en u m , n ick el, silver, tin, tu ngsten, v an ad iu m , zin c, p h osph ate rock (fe rti
liz e r), potash (fe rtilize r), a sbesto s, and d iam on ds. It produ ces the e n ergy eq u iva len t
o f som e 20 m illion m etric tons o f co al and con su m es the eq u iv a len t o f o v e r 47 m illion
m etric to n s.' (P aul R . E h rlich and R ich ard L . H arrim an , H ow to B e a Survivor: A
Plan to Save Spaceship Earth (N e w Y o r k , 19 7 1, p. 3 7).) O n the o th er hand, m any
o th er cou n tries are on ly sm all-scale im porters and, at least fo r the p resen t, cou ld
p ro b a b ly prod u ce all th eir fo o d and o th er essen tials if really fo rced to do so. B u t
th ere are no o th er co u n tries w h o are lik ely e v e r to b eco m e large-scale exp o rters o f
fo o d . T h u s these statistics are m islead in g, and not even c o rrect, if in terp reted to
m ean th at all cou n tries b esid es th ese few w o u ld face starvation if th eir fo o d im ports
w e re cut o ff. B u t if th ey are v iew e d from a p ersp ective o f w h ere the rapid ly grow in g
fo o d deficit o f the rest o f the w orld is go in g to com e fro m , th ere is very little room for
error: it w ill com e from these co u n tries or not at all.
J U D G E M E N T DA Y 119
already grossly overpopulated and that A m erica and the few other
food surplus countries are likely not to be able to supply food even
to all the rich countries (England, Japan, Russia, T he N etherlands,
e tc .) with m oney to buy it for much longer, to say nothing o f giving it
aw ay to the poor countries with their exploding populations.
So the point I am m aking is this. It should be clear to everybody
w ith even a rudim entary understanding o f the population crisis that
even if A m erica m anages to provide well for herself indefinitely into
the future (m ost unlikely), she cannot possibly continue for very
long to provide food to very many other countries. Soon aid must
cease or be drastically reduced to any country w e are helping now or
undertake to help in the future. The point o f the exam ple was to
show that when that aid finally stops, the resulting disaster will be
far m ore hellish than anything that w ould have happened had aid
never been sent at all. Thus aid in the form of food or m edical
technology (with the all-im portant exception o f birth control
devices) should never be sent to needy countries; and any countries
which are now receiving aid should be cut o ff— and the sooner the
better.
T h ere is one clear-cut error which has been introduced by the
sim plifications I m ade. O bviously a country which is on the verge of
achieving population stabilization and food self-sufficiency should
be fed until it has got over the hum p. Thus a policy o f blanket refusal
o f aid could be im proved upon, though what the criteria for aid
should b e, I have no idea. N one the less I w ill state without proof my
opinion that a policy o f blanket refusal o f aid w ould in the long run
cause less suffering than either a policy o f blanket granting o f as
m uch aid as is possible or the present policy (w hatever that is). Thus
w e have reality’s consum m ate and heart-breaking.final irony: even
those few , those very few people of the rich countries who are not
dead to the plight o f their fellow human beings, are by and large
engaged in food or m edical relief projects which in the long run will
p robably cause much m ore m isery than they cure.
B efore ending this chapter, I w ould like to develop one last
statistic whose derivation was too unwieldy to include in the speech.
O n e m ay be curious as to what fraction o f human beings will starve
to death. N o one can accurately predict the m agnitude o f the
com ing cataclysm or what percentage o f humanity will perish in it,
120 LOUIS PASCAL
but we m ay set a minimum by exploring the question o f what
fraction will die if things remain as they are. That is, we will assume
a constant rate o f population increase and assume that the fraction
o f people dying from starvation remains in the future what it is
today.
If our population w ere stable, things w ould be quite sim ple. Then
the fraction o f people who would eventually die o f starvation, or in
other words, a newborn bab y’s chances o f eventually starving (call
it ‘F ’), w ould simply be the deaths due to starvation in any given
year divided by the total deaths in that year. But with a constantly
increasing population that relation no longer holds true.
L et us call the total num ber o f deaths by starvation which
occurred in 1986, ‘D s’ , and the total num ber o f deaths from all
causes, ‘D ’ . Thus
though this w ould be true if the population w ere stable. C all the
total num ber o f births in 1986, ‘B ’ . A s we said, the fraction o f all
people born in 1986 who will eventually starve is F. T h erefore the
actual num ber o f people born in 1986 who will eventually starve is
F B . But this num ber o f deaths is greater than the num ber who
actually did starve to death in 1986 (D s) because starvation deaths
must increase from year to year at the same rate as the population,
since F is constant. Thus we m ay write F B > D s (where “> ’ means
‘is greater than’) or
Thus the fraction o f people born in 1986 who will eventually die of
starvation is greater than the starvation deaths o f 1986 divided by
the total births for 1986. Putting in actual numbers and using the
sm aller o f D r E hrlich’s estim ates, we get F > 10,000,000/
133,000,000 or F > 1/13.3. Putting in D r E hrlich’s larger num ber,
w e get F > 1/6.7. Thus if you are a human being born in 1986, your
chances o f eventually starving are considerably greater than 1 in 14
and possibly greater than 1 in 7— and those figures are obtained by
projecting today’ s level o f misery into the future, ignoring the
J U D G E M E N T DA Y 121
absolute certainty that the level o f misery will soon drastically
increase. In fact if you look back through this section and the
preceding one, you will find that virtually all the statistics I m ade use
o f reflected conditions as they are tod ay.8
P O S T S C R IP T
M uch has happened on the population front since 1970-1 when this
essay was first written. A brief com parison o f the world situation
then and now (1986) is in order. The rate o f growth apparently
peaked at about 2.0 per cent per year (35-year doubling tim e) in the
early 1970s. It fell slightly during the mid-1970s, reaching
approxim ately 1.7 per cent in 1978. It has rem ained virtually
unchanged since 1978— eight o f the last nine growth rate estim ates
given by the Population R eference B ureau have been 1.7 per cent,
the exception com ing in 1983 with 1.8 per cent. The corresponding
doubling tim es have oscillated betw een 40 and 41 years (39 in 1983).
These w ere 9 lost years we w ere w holly unable to afford, com prising
quite possibly m ore than 25 per cent o f the time rem aining before
nature takes its revenge and quite certainly m ore than 25 per cent o f
the tim e in which to find a solution. Com pared to 1970, we are
significantly worse o ff today in the three ways which m atter most.
First and second: our population is larger by 1 .3 b ., and the num ber
added per year is considerably greater now. Population increase has
carried us backw ard much further than the tiny reduction in per cent
growth rate has taken us forward. A 1970 world population o f
3,632m. grow ing by 2.0 per cent was adding 73m. people per year;
8 T h e 'S p e e c h ' w as o rig in ally pu blish ed in Inquiry (vo l. 23, 1980, pp. 2 4 2 -5 1),
a lo n g w ith a few p ages o f rela ted m aterial. T h e re I estim ated a 10 per cent ch an ce o f
sta rva tio n , assum ing 10m. d eath s p er year. T h e re is a great d eal o f u n certain ty o v er
th e actu al n u m b ers, but I now su spect E h rlich 's larger figure o f 20m. is to o high. A
fa irly co n serv ativ e estim ate o f 10m. is accep ted as ‘ a p retty g o o d figure to u se ’ by
N ick E b e rstad t (perso n al co m m u n ication , 24 June 1985; see also p. 40 o f his ‘H u n ger
and Id e o lo g y ’ , Com m entary, v o l. 72, July 198 1), an anti-M althusian w riter w h o has
g o n e to a lot o f e ffo rt to sh ow th at certain h un ger figures h ave b een exa gge ra te d .
(U n fo rtu n a te ly he has som etim es gon e to o far in this regard , his w ell-kn o w n statistic
th at o n ly 2 p er cen t o f the hum an ra ce are ‘critica lly h un gry' at a giv en tim e b ein g a
fa ct w ith o u t any clea r m ean in g, p e rfec tly con sisten t w ith any fraction o f hum ans
starvin g to d ea th , in cluding 100 p e r cen t.) In ‘T h e D e clin e in H u n g e r-R e late d
D e a th s ’ (H unger P roject Pa pers, no. 1, M ay 1984) R o y L . Prosterm an gives a rough
p ro ced u re th at p rod u ces a figure o f I3 m .-i8 m .
122 LOUIS PASCAL
1986’ s 4,942m. at a little over 1.7 per cent is growing by 85m. Both
overpopulation and population growth are substantially greater
today.
U nder the current circum stances the third area o f deterioration
m ay be the most im portant o f all. W e have consumed another 16
years’ worth o f our dwindling resources. U p to the end o f 1970 the
world had used approxim ately 244b. barrels o f the estim ated
2,000b. barrels o f crude oil which will ever be recovered. (This
includes an estim ate for oil as yet undiscovered. A t least eight
recent studies have com e close to this figure, most being slightly
below .) Thus at the end o f 1970 there w ere about 478 barrels o f oil
for every person then alive. In the follow ing 12 years we consum ed
alm ost exactly as much oil as we had used from the beginning o f the
industrial era to the end o f 1970, so that by the end o f 1982 there
w ere only an estim ated 327 barrels o f oil remaining per person, a
drop o f alm ost one-third in 12 years. A m ericans, at their 1980 rate
o f consum ption o f 26.4 barrels a year apiece, even if the rate does
not rise and their population ceases to grow , will consum e their 327
barrels in 12.4 years and thereafter will be consuming other
countries’ shares. Even if other countries consume all their 327
barrels, at their 1980 rate o f 3.95 barrels per person per year, it will
still be gone in 83 years even if their per capita usage remains at its
current low level and their populations grow no larger. B ut at
current rates o f growth these countries’ populations will more than
quintuple in 83 years. N ot only is virtually all o f m odern industry
vitally dependent on oil, but A m erican agriculture in 1970 used nine
times m ore energy in producing food than the food contained. A n d
the increased yields o f the ‘ G reen R evo lu tio n ’ are paid for through
greatly increased energy requirem ents. W e are consuming our oil in
quite a literal sense.
O ne-quarter o f the w orld ’s people are dependent on w ood for
their ch ief source o f fuel, yet they are cutting down their forests so
rapidly that by the year 2020 (only 34 years away) ‘virtually all the
physically accessible forest in the Less D evelop ed Countries is
expected to have been cut’ . ( The G lobal 2000 Report to the
President, U S G o vt. Printing O ffice, 1980, vol. 1, p. 26.) A n d many
other m ineral and biological resources will be exhausted or nearing
exhaustion by this time.
J U D G E M E N T DA Y 123
T h e world is rushing toward a precipice at dizzying speed. If we
are not already beyond the point o f no return, it is staring us in the
face and we show no sign o f turning back. It was 13 years ago
(unpublished) and again 5 years later (Inquiry, vol. 21, p. 452,
W inter 1978) when I predicted that not only would we lose the
battle against overpopulation, but that w e w ould not even m ake any
serious attem pt to save ourselves. The contest would not even be
close. It now looks as if that is going to be even m ore true than I
realized. Com placency has been growing even faster than
overpopulation.
D espite all this pessimism, I do not mean to leave the impression
nothing can be done. I do not think a catastrophe can be averted,
but actions we take or fail to take now will greatly affect the ultim ate
m agnitude o f the catastrophe. U ncertain, but potentially o f almost
unim aginable im portance, is the impact we can have on the nature
o f the post-crash world. T h e events which are about to unfold will
profoundly affect our world for a very long tim e, and the numbers of
people involved over that span m ay potentially be m any times the
current world population. It is not outside the realm o f possibility
that much o f the future o f sentient life on our planet will be
determ ined by the events o f the next twenty or so years.
M uch less uncertain, w e can probably still today vary the
m agnitude o f the im m ediate catastrophe by a factor o f tw o, and
possibly m ore. T w o catastrophes are twice as bad as one, and the
hundreds o f millions— if not billions— o f people whose lives hang in
the balance will be as saved if we save them or as lost if we don’t as
they w ould be if theirs w ere the only lives involved. Indeed, with so
few people interested and so much still to be determ ined, it is likely
that never before and never again in human history will the actions
o f the average individual who does take it upon him self to get
involved, m ean so much.
IX
A. M Y D O I N G IT M A K E S A N I N S I G N I F I C A N T D I F F E R E N C E
H ere, the argum ent is that, given the size o f a problem , the best I
can do in the w ay o f acting or refraining will m ake only an
insignificant difference, and so it does not m atter what I do. This
argument is found in discussions o f the population problem or o f
world poverty. The suggestion is that the problem o f over-populat
ion is so vast that my refraining from having another child will not
m ake a significant im pact. It can similarly be argued that problem s
o f poverty and hunger are so vast that my sending m oney to relief
agencies is a drop in the ocean, and pointless.
B. M Y D O IN G IT M A K E S N O D I F F E R E N C E
6. Side effects
A m ore prom ising w ay o f arguing against the scientist taking the
chem ical w arfare job is to exam ine all the side effects o f taking it,
together with the alternatives. For the claim that ‘if I d on ’t do it,
som eone else w ill’ is not sufficient to show that the total conse
quences o f my taking the job will be no worse than the total
consequences o f m y not taking it.
O ne factor is the possibility o f my doing some socially useful
research instead. T he probability is that the other people wanting
the job are not guided much in their choice o f w ork by considera
tions o f social usefulness. If one o f the others gets it, there is only an
average chance that the w ork he would otherwise have done would
have been beneficial. But if I refuse the job , it is in my pow er to look
for the most useful project I stand a good chance o f com pleting.
T h ere is also the question o f the influence I have on others. If I
take the jo b , this m akes a small contribution to m aking such w ork
132 JO NATHAN GLOVER
respectable am ong those o f my fellow scientists who know me and
give any weight to my view s. It may be said that the same contribut
ion to an am oral clim ate o f scientific research will be m ade by
w h oever takes the job. But this objection ignores the positive
influence a refusal on principle can have. If I get the jo b , the other
applicants will probably just grum ble about the shortage o f scien
tific jobs and m ake no contribution to discrediting chem ical warfare
as a field o f research. If I refuse the job on moral grounds, this may
itself m ake a good, if sm all, impact on the moral clim ate o f science.
It also leaves me free to cam paign against others taking such jobs. It
is true that if I accept the job (perhaps for som e very subtle
utilitarian reason) I can still campaign against others taking similar
jobs. But my cam paign would be w eakened by the impression of
hypocrisy this would create on unsubtle people.
There is also the effect on m yself o f doing, for good but subtle
reasons, som ething that in crude terms I disapprove of. Suppose I
take the jo b , while thinking it would be better if such research w ere
not done, partly because I need the m oney more than the other
applicants, and partly because I know that (by inefficient work not
quite bad enough to get me sacked) I can ensure that the w ork is less
productive. I m ay find I have underestim ated the effects o f this bad
faith, and when deception gets a perm anent foothold in that part o f
m y life, I m ay find it hard to prevent contam ination o f other
relationships. Consequentialists can justify some acts o f lying. But
an enorm ously greater case has to be m ade out for any policy
requiring constant deception, just because of the psychological
difficulty o f keeping one part o f one’s mind sufficiently cordoned o ff
from the other parts.
A n d , even if I can keep my mind com partm entalized in this
m anner, I m ay be corrupted in a more oblique way. O ur em otional
responses are not always governed by our beliefs. A n atheist who
was strongly conditioned to church-going in childhood may still feel
guilty when he lies in bed on Sundays. Sim ilarly, the utilitarian
scientist working on chem ical warfare may from time to time be
filled with self-loathing and disgust, which may not be dispelled
even when he rehearses to him self the com plex reasons which he
thinks justify his having the job. This may not in itself matter very
much. But it can be im portant not to be subjected to too much
‘IT M A K E S N O D I F F E R E N C E W H E T H E R OR N O T I DO I T ’ 13 3
tension o f this kind, not only because it is unpleasant, but also
because som e constancy o f self-esteem m ay be necessary for going
on trying to be moral at all. If among the burdens o f being m oral
there is a heavy weight o f self-disgust, the whole policy is likely to
break under the load.
B ut these appeals to side effects although powerful in the chem i
cal warfare case, are not always sufficient to nullify the force o f the
claim ‘if I don’t do it, som eone else w ill’ . This is because it is always
possible to construct a case where the arguments on the other side
are even m ore pow erful. Suppose I am very uninfluential in the
scientific com m unity and so my exam ple either way carries very
little weight. (The effects o f a Bertrand Russell not follow ing a
m ultitude to do evil m ay be im mense, but most other people
com m and less attention.) A lso suppose that I have a huge fam ily;
that w e are very poor; and that there is very little chance of my
finding any other job at all, let alone doing any useful research. It is
plausible that, in the chem ical warfare problem , appeals to side
effects will in the normal case provide very good reasons against
taking the jo b , even where it is certain that if I do not take it
som eone else will. B u t, as with all such argum ents, it cannot be
guaranteed that this result will be generated in all instances o f the
dilem m a.
9. Ritual
A p p eals to side effects (including spirals) will often not be powerful
enough to generate an adequate consequentialist argument for
voting, and the direct appeal to the question o f who will win the
election will carry weight only on very rare occasions. This is
som ething a consequentialist m ay just accept, but many others find
this rather shocking. Perhaps this is because, for many people in our
society, voting is a kind o f sacred ritual. There are em otional
satisfactions in ritual professions o f belief, and people who experi
ence these satisfactions are disturbed by other people taking them
lightly. This is a very m inor factor to take into account, and it
cuts both ways. It is a pity to cause minor disturbance to believers,
but it is often beneficial to encourage people to question their
rituals.
14. Conclusions
T o sum m arize the position argued for:
(A ) T H E A R G U M E N T F R O M T H E I N S I G N I F IC A N T D I F F E R E N C E :
(I follow Sidgw ick’s exam ple, and bury this last conclusion at the
end o f a paper in the Supplem entary V olum e o f the A ristotelian
Society.)
144 JONATHAN GLOVER
Note: In writing this paper I have been helped a lot by suggestions
and criticisms by V ivette G lo ver, H enry W est, Jim Griffin, and
D e rek Parfit.
REFERENCES
I Q U A L IT Y A N D Q U A N T IT Y
F ig. i
* T h e first h alf o f this (h ith erto u n p u b lish ed ) essay sum m arizes a lon ger discussion in
m y R easons and Persons (O x fo r d , 1984). Ih a v e been greatly h elped b y J. M cM ah an ,
J. R . R ich a rd s, L . T e m k in , K . K a la fsk i, and R . Jones. F or further readin g on this
su b je ct, see O bligations to Future Generations, ed. R . I. S ik o ra and B. B a rry
(P h ilad elp h ia , 1978) and M cM a h a n 's lon g review o f this a n th ology in E thics 92,
N o . 1, 1981.
146 D E R E K P A R F IT
blocks shows the num ber o f people living; the height shows how
w ell o ff these people are. Com pared with outcom e A , outcom e B
w ould have twice as m any people, who would all be worse off. T o
avoid irrelevant com plications, I assume that in each outcom e there
w ould be no inequality: no one w ould be worse o ff than anyone
else. I also assume that everyo n e’s life would be well worth living.
T h ere are various ways in which, because there would be twice as
m any people in outcom e B , these people might be all w orse o ff than
the people in A . T here might be worse housing, overcrow ded
schools, m ore pollution, less unspoilt countryside, few er opportuni
ties, and a sm aller share per person o f various other kinds of
resources. I shall say, for short, that in B there is a lower quality o f
life.
E xcept for the absence o f inequality, these two outcom es could
be the real alternatives for some country, or m ankind, given two
rates o f population growth over m any years. W ould one o f these
outcom es be worse than the other? I do not mean ‘m orally w orse’ in
the sense that applies only to agents and to acts. But one o f two
outcom es can be worse in another sense that has moral relevance. It
w ould be w orse, in this sense, if more people suffer, or die young.
W ould it be worse, in this sense, if the outcom e was B rather than
A ? Part o f the answer is clear. W e w ould all agree that B would be,
in one w ay, worse than A : it would be bad that everyone would be
worse off.
O n one view , this is all that m atters, and it m akes B worse than A .
This view is expressed in
1 O f the m an y eco n om ists w h o appeal to the A v e r a g e Prin ciple, som e m ake it true
b y defin ition . S e e , for e xa m p le , P. A . S am u elso n , E co n o m ics (N e w Y o r k , 1970),
p. 5 51. C erta in w riters state this principle so that it co v ers on ly the lives that a re, at
a n y tim e, b ein g lived. T h is m akes the principle im ply th at it w ou ld h ave been b etter if
all but the b e st-o ff p e o p le had ju st d ropp ed d ead. M y version s o f the A v e ra g e
P rin cip le do not im ply this absurd con clu sion . If a n yo n e with a life w orth livin g dies
e a rlie r, this causes p e o p le 's lives to g o , on a ve ra g e , w o rse, and to con tain a sm aller
a ve ra g e sum o f happiness.
O V E R P O P U L A T I O N A N D T H E Q U A L I T Y OF L I F E 147
O n the other main view about this question, it is good if any extra
life is lived, that is worth living. O n this view B might be better than
A . B w ould be in one way w orse, because everyone would be worse
off. But in another way B w ould be better, because there w ould be
m ore people living, all o f whose lives would be worth living. A n d
the fact that people w ould be worse o ff might be less important
than— or outweighed by— the fact that there would be m ore people
living.
W hich o f these view s should w e accept? C ould a loss in the quality
o f p eo p le’s lives be outw eighed by a sufficient increase in the
quantity o f worthw hile life lived? If this is so, what are the relative
values o f quality and quantity? These are the central questions
about overpopulation.2
T h e A ve ra g e Principle implies that only quality m atters. A t the
other extrem e is
This principle implies that only quantity m atters. Its N on-H edo-
nistic version substitutes, for ‘happiness’ , ‘w hatever m akes life
w orth living’ .
O n the H edonistic T o tal Principle, B would be better than A
because each life in B w ould be more than h a lf as happy as each life
in A . Though the people in B would each be less happy than the
p eople in A , they together would have m ore happiness— just as two
bottles m ore than half-full hold more than a bottleful. O n the non-
H edonistic version o f this principle, B w ould be better than A
because, com pared with lives in A , lives in B w ould be more than
h a lf as much w orth living.
These claims m ay seem im plausibly precise. But lives in B w ould
be m ore than half as much w orth living if, though a m ove from the
level in A to that in B would be a decline in the quality o f life, it
w ould take much m ore than another sim ilarly large decline before
2 T h e se rem ark s assum e that the q u ality o f life is h igh er if p e o p le ’s lives go b etter,
and th at each life g o e s b etter i f it con tain s a g re a te r q u an tity e ith er o f happiness o r o f
w h a te v e r else m ak es life w orth living. ‘ Q u a lity ’ thus m eans ‘q u an tity, p e r life liv e d ’ .
In S ection 5 b e lo w I d ro p this assu m ption , th ereb y sim plifying the con trast b etw een
q u a lity and q u an tity. (If this n o te is p u zzlin g, ign o re it.)
148 D E R E K P A R F IT
p eo p le’s lives ceased to be worth living. T here are many actual cases
in which such a claim would be tru e.3
2 TH E R E P U G N A N T C O N C L U S IO N
F ig . 2
3 TH E M ER E A D D IT IO N PARADOX
Fig- 3
152 D E R E K P A R F IT
the extra group had never existed? This is hard to believe. It may
seem a bad feature that there is natural inequality in AH— that the
extra group are, through no fault o f theirs, worse o ff than the
original group. But the inequality in A + does not seem to justify
the view that the extra group should never have existed. W hy are
they such a blot on the U niverse?
Y o u m ay think that you have no view about whether it would
have been better if the extra group had never existed. It may help to
consider another outcom e: A + H ell. In this outcom e the extra
group are innocent people who all have lives which are much worse
than nothing. T h ey w ould all kill them selves if they could, but their
torturers prevent this. W e would all agree that A + H ell is worse
than A . It w ould have been better if this extra group, as they all
passionately wish, had never existed. Since we believe that
A + H ell is worse than A , we must be able to com pare A + and A .
U nlike the extra group in H ell, the extra people in A + have lives
that are well worth living; and their existence is not bad for anyone.
M ost o f us could not honestly claim to believe that it would have
been better if these people had never existed. M ost o f us would
therefore believe that A + is not worse than A .
N ow suppose that, as a result of changes in the environm ent, A +
turned into D ivided B . In both these outcom es the same num ber o f
people would exist, so we are not m aking one o f the unfam iliar
com parisons which involve different numbers o f people in
existence. Since the num bers are the same in A + and D ivided B ,
our ordinary m oral principles apply.
O n the principles which most o f us accept, D ivided B would be
better than A + . On the Principle o f U tility it is better if there is a
greater net sum o f benefits— a greater sum o f benefits minus losses.
D ivided B w ould be better than A + in utilitarian term s, since the
benefits to the people who gain w ould be greater than the losses to
the people who lose. O n the Principle o f Equality it is better if there
is less inequality betw een different people. D ivided B w ould be
better than A + in egalitarian terms, since the benefits w ould all go
to the people who are worse off.
It might be o bjected that the Principle o f Equality does not apply
to people who cannot even com m unicate. But suppose that I know
about two such people, one o f whom is, through m ere bad luck,
O V E R P O P U L A T I O N A N D T H E Q U A L I T Y OF L I F E 15 3
worse off. C all these people P oor and Rich. I could either benefit
R ich , or give a greater benefit to Poor. M ost o f us w ould believe that
it w ould be better if I do the second. A n d we w ould believe that this
w ould m ake the outcom e better, not only because I would give Poor
a greater benefit, but also because he is worse o ff than Rich. M ost o f
us w ould believe this even though P oor and Rich cannot (except
through me) com m unicate.
H ow could we deny that a change from A + to D ivided B would
be a change for the better? W e w ould have to claim that the loss to
the best-off people in A + m atters more than the greater gain to the
equally num erous w orst-off people. This seem s to com mit us to the
Elitist view that what m atters most is the condition o f the best-off
people. This is the opposite o f R aw ls’s fam ous view that what
m atters most is the condition o f the w orst-off p eo p le.8 M ost o f us
w ould reject this Elitist V iew . M ost o f us w ould therefore agree that
D ivided B w ould be better than A + .
Suppose finally that the A tlan tic is crossed, turning D ivided B
into B . These two outcom es are clearly equally g o o d . Since D ivided
B w ould be better than A + , B must be better than A + .
L et us now com bine the conclusions we have reached. M ost o f us
believe both that A + is not worse than A , and that B is better than
A + . T hese beliefs together imply that B is not worse than A . B
cannot be worse than A if it is better than som ething— AH— which is
not worse than A . In the same w ay, you cannot be taller than me if
you are shorter than som eone who is not taller than me. B u t, as I
earlier claim ed, most o f us also believe that B is worse than A . W e
therefore have three beliefs which are inconsistent, and imply a
contradiction. T hese beliefs imply that B both is and is not worse
than A . I call this the Mere Addition Paradox.
This is not just a conflict betw een different m oral principles.
Suppose that we accept both the Principle o f E quality and the
Principle o f U tility. T here can be cases where these principles
conflict— where greater equality would reduce the sum o f benefits.
B ut such a case does not reveal any inconsistency in our moral view.
W e would m erely have to ask w hether, given the details o f the case,
the gain in equality would be m ore im portant than the loss o f
95 94 93
---.8 0
40 ,4 0 40 ----- 140
and and
A lp h a 2 so on B eta 2 G am m a 2 so on O m ega 2
O m ega 2— ► O m ega 3-
O m ega 100
158 D E R E K P A R F IT
It m ay be objected that A lp h a is worse than A + because the
w orst-off groups in A lp h a are worse o ff than the w orst-off group in
A + . M any people accept R aw ls’s view that what matters most is the
condition o f the w orst-off group. But there are two quite different
w ays in which any w orst-off group might have been better off. This
group might have existed, and been better off. This is the ordinary
case, which Raw ls discusses. Things would have been quite d iffe
rent if the w orst-off group had never existed. This would have
provided another sense in which the ‘w o rst-o ff’ group w ould have
been better o ff, since som e other group would then have been those
who are worst off. W ould this have m ade the outcom e better? If we
answer Y e s , we must agree that it would have been even better if the
second w orst-off group had also never existed, and the third worst-
o ff group, and the fourth w orst-off group, and so on. It would have
been best if everyone except the best-off group had never existed.
Sim ilarly, it might be best if in future only the best-off nation— such
as the N orw egians— have children. Even if this w ould be worse for
them , it might cause it to be true that, after the rest o f us have died,
the ‘w o rst-o ff’ people in the world are as well o ff as possible. This
w ay o f raising the level o f ‘the w orst-off group’ has no m oral merit.
T h e non-existence o f all but the best-off group would not, in the
m orally relevant sense, m ake the w orst-off group better off.
T h e inequality in A lp h a is not worse than the inequality in A + ;
nor is A lp h a worse than A + because the w orst-off groups are worse
off. N or is there any other w ay in which A lp h a is worse than A + . 10
A n d , in one w ay, A lp h a is better than A + . A lp h a does not differ
from A + m erely by involving the existence o f the very many groups
at level 45. A ll o f the people in A + are in one o f two groups, and
both these groups are, in A lp h a, better off. (These are the groups at
level 105.) I conclude that, since A lp h a is in this way better than
5 T H E Q U A L IT Y O F S IN G L E L IV E S
6 P E R F E C T IO N IS M
First, we have to ask what this thing, slavery, is, about whose
wrongness we are arguing. A s soon as we ask this question we see at
10 I am gra tefu l to the edito rs o f P hilo so p hy and P u b lic A ffairs fo r pressing this
o b je ctio n . I d eal w ith it o n ly so far as it con cern s slavery such as m ight occu r in the
w o rld as w e k n o w it. B ra v e N ew W o rld situation s in w hich p e o p le are con d ition ed
from birth to be o b e d ie n t slaves and given d isag reeab le o r d an gerou s tasks requ ire
sep arate treatm en t w h ich is b eyo n d the scop e o f this p a p er, th ough anti-utilitarian
argu m en ts based on them m eet the sam e d efe n ce , n am ely the req u irem en t to assess
re a listica lly w h at the con seq u en ces o f such practices w o u ld actu ally be.
W H A T IS W R O N G W I T H S L A V E R Y ? 173
appeal to our ordinary intuitions as an argum ent, the opponents of
utilitarianism have to produce cases which are not too far rem oved
from the sort o f cases with which our intuitions are designed to deal,
nam ely the ordinary run o f cases. If the cases they use fall outside
this class, then the fact that our com m on intuitions give a different
verdict from utilitarianism has no bearing on the argum ent; our
intuitions could well be wrong about such cases, and be none the
worse for that, because they will never have to deal with them in
practice.
W e m ay also notice, while we are sifting possible exam ples, that
cases o f individual slave-owners who are kind to their slaves will not
do. The issue is one o f w hether slavery as an institution protected by
law should be preserved; and if it is preserved, though there may be
individuals who do not take advantage o f it to m altreat their slaves,
there will no doubt be m any others who do.
L et us im agine, then, that the battle o f W aterloo, that ‘dam ned nice
thing, the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life’ ,11 as W elling
ton called it, went differently from the way it actually did go, in two
respects. T he first was that the British and Prussians lost the battle;
the last attack o f the French G uard proved too much for them , the
G u a rd ’s m orale having been restored by N apoleon who in person
led their advance instead o f handing it over to N ey. B ut secondly,
having exposed him self to fire as W ellington habitually did, but
lacking W ellin gton’s am azing good fortune, N apoleon was struck
by a cannon ball and killed instantly. This so disorganized the
French, who had no other com m anders o f such ability, that
W ellington was able to rally his forces and conduct one o f those
holding operations at which he was so adept, basing him self on the
Channel ports and their intricate surrounding w aterways; the result
was a cross betw een the Lines o f T orres V edras and the trench
w arfare o f the First W orld W ar. A fte r a year or two o f this, with
N apoleon out o f the way and the war party discredited in England,
liberal (that is, neither revolutionary nor reactionary) regimes cam e
into pow er in both countries, and the Congress o f Vienna
T h at, perhaps, will do for our im aginary exam ple. N ow for the
philosophical argum ent. It is com m only alleged that utilitarianism
could condone or com m end slavery. In the situation described,
utility w ould have been lessened and not increased if the Juban
governm ent had abolished slavery and if as a result the econom y of
Juba had deteriorated to the level o f that o f Cam aica. So, it might be
argued, a utilitarian w ould have had to oppose the abolition. But
everyone agrees, it might be held, that slavery is wrong; so the
utilitarians are convicted o f m aintaining a thesis which has conse
quences repugnant to universally accepted moral convictions.
W hat could they reply to this attack? There are, basically, two
lines they could take. These lines are not incom patible but com p
lem entary; indeed, the defence o f utilitarianism could be put in the
form o f a dilem m a. Either the defender o f utilitarianism is allowed
to question the im agined facts o f the exam ple, or he is not. First let
us suppose that he is not. H e might then try, as a first m ove, saying
that in the situation as portrayed it would indeed be wrong to abolish
slavery. If the argum ent descends to details, the anti-utilitarians
176 R. M. H A R E
m ay be perm itted to insert any num ber o f extra details (barring the
actual abolition o f slavery itself) in order to m ake sure that its
retention really does m axim ize utility. But then the utilitarian sticks
to his guns and m aintains that in that case it would be wrong to
abolish slavery, and that, further, most ordinary people, if they
could be got to consider the case on its merits and not allow their
judgem ent to be confused by association with m ore detestable
form s o f slavery, would agree with this verdict. The principle of
liberty which forbids slavery is a prim a-facie principle admitting
o f exceptions, and this im aginary case is one o f the exceptions. If
the utilitarians could sustain this line o f defence, they w ould win
the case; but perhaps not everyone w ould agree that it is sus
tainable.
So let us allow the utilitarian another slightly m ore sophisticated
m ove, still staying, how ever, perched on the first horn o f the
dilem m a. H e might admit that not everyone would agree on the
merits o f this case, but explain this by pointing to the fantastic and
unusual nature o f the case, which, he might claim , would be
unlikely to occur in real life . I f he is not allowed to question the facts
o f the case, he has to admit that abolition would be wrong; but
ordinary people, he might say, cannot see this because the
principles o f political and social m orality which we have all o f us
now absorbed (as contrasted with our eighteenth-century ances
tors), and with which we are deeply inbued, prevent us from
considering the case on its merits. The principles are fram ed to cope
with the cases o f slavery which actually occur (all o f which are to a
greater or lesser degree harm ful). Though they are the best
principles for us to have when confronting the actual world, they
give the wrong answer when presented with this fantastic case. But
all the sam e, the world being as it is, we should be m orally worse
p eople if we did not have these principles; for then we might be
tem pted, w hether through ignorance or by self-interest, to condone
slavery in cases in which, though actually harm ful, it could be
colourably represented as being beneficial. Suppose, it might be
argued, that an exam ple o f this sort had been used in anti-aboli-
tionist writings in, say, 1830 or thereabouts. M ight it not have
persuaded many people that slavery could be an adm irable thing,
and thus have secured their votes against abolition; and w ould this
W H A T IS W R O N G W I T H S L A V E R Y ? 177
not have been very harm ful? For the miseries caused by the actual
institution o f slavery in the Caribbean and elsew here w ere so great
that it was desirable from a utilitarian point o f view that people
should hold and act on moral convictions which condem ned slavery
as such and without qualification, because this w ould lead them to
vote for its abolition.
If utilitarians take this slightly more sophisticated line, they are
left saying at one and the same time that it would have been wrong
to abolish slavery in the im agined circum stances, and that it is a
good thing that nearly everyone, if asked about it, would say that it
was right. Is this paradoxical? N ot, I think, to anybody who
understands the realities o f the human situation. W hat resolves the
paradox is that the exam ple is im aginary and that therefore people
are not going to have to pronounce, as a practical issue, on what the
laws o f Juba are to be. In deciding what principles it is good that
people have, it is not necessary or even desirable to take into
account such im aginary cases. It does not really m atter, from a
practical point o f view , what judgem ents people reach about
im aginary cases, provided that this does not have an adverse effect
upon their judgem ents about real cases. From a practical point o f
view , the principles which it is best for them to have are those which
will lead them to m ake the highest proportion o f right decisions in
actual cases where their decisions m ake a difference to what
happens— w eighted, o f course, for the im portance o f the cases, that
is, the am ount o f difference the decisions m ake to the resulting good
or harm.
It is therefore perfectly acceptable that we should at one and the
sam e time feel a strong moral conviction that even the Juban slave
system , how ever beneficial, is w rong, and confess, when we reflect
on the features o f this im agined system, that we cannot see anything
specifically wrong about it, but rather a great deal to com m end. This
is bound to be the experience o f anybody who has acquired the sort
o f moral convictions that one ought to acquire, and at the same time
is able to reflect rationally on the features o f some unusual imagined
situation. I have m yself constantly had this experience when
confronted with the sort o f anti-utilitarian exam ples which are the
stock-in-trade o f philosophers like Bernard W illiam s. O ne is led to
think, on reflection, that i/such cases w ere to occur, one ought to do
x7 8 R. M. H A R E
what is for the best in the circumstances (as even W illiam s him self
appears to contem plate in one o f his cases);12 but one is bound also
to find this conclusion repugnant to o n e’s deepest convictions; if
it is not, o n e’s convictions are not the best convictions one could
have.
A gain st this, it might be objected that if o n e’s deep m oral
convictions yield the wrong answer even in im aginary or unusual
cases, they are not the best one could have. C ould we not succeed, it
might be asked, in inculcating into ourselves convictions o f a m ore
accom m odating sort? C ould we not, that is to say, absorb principles
which had written into them either exceptions to deal with awkward
cases like that in my exam ple, or even provision for writing in
exceptions ad hoc when the awkward cases arose? U p to a point this
is a sensible suggestion; but beyond that point (a point which will
vary with the tem peram ent o f the person whose principles they are
to be) it becom es psychologically unsound. T here are som e simple
souls, no doubt, who really cannot keep them selves in the straight
and narrow way unless they cling fanatically and in the face o f what
most o f us would call reason to extrem ely simple and narrow
principles. A n d there are others who m anage to have very
com plicated principles with m any exceptions written into them
(only ‘w ritten’ is the wrong w ord, because the principles o f such
p eople defy form ulation). M ost o f us com e som ewhere in between.
It is also possible to have fairly simple principles but to attach to
them a rubric which allows us to depart from them , either when one
conflicts with another in a particular case, or where the case is such
an unusual one that we find ourselves doubting whether the
principles w ere designed to deal with it. In these cases we m ay apply
utilitarian reasoning directly; but it is most unwise to do this in more
normal cases, for those are precisely the cases (the great m ajority)
which our principles are designed to deal with, since they w ere
chosen to give the best results in the general run o f cases. In normal
cases, therefore, w e are m ore likely to achieve the right decision
(even from the utilitarian point o f view ) by sticking to these
principles than by engaging in utilitarian reasoning about the
particular case, with all its tem ptations to special pleading.
12 S ee W illiam s, ‘ A C ritiq u e o f U tilitarian ism ’ , in J. J. C . Sm art and B . W illiam s,
Utilitarianism: F o r and A g ainst (C a m b rid g e , 1973), p. 99.
W H A T IS W R O N G W I T H S L A V E R Y ? 179
I have dealt with these issues at length elsew h ere.13 H ere all I
need to say is that there is a psychological limit to the com plexity
and to the flexibility o f the m oral principles that w e can wisely seek
to build d eeply, as m oral convictions, into our character; and the
person who tries to go beyond this limit will end up as (what he will
be called) an unprincipled person, and will not in fact do the best he
could with his life, even by the test o f utility. This m ay explain why I
w ould always vote for the abolition o f slavery, even though I can
admit that cases could be imagined in which slavery w ould do more
good than harm , and even though I am a utilitarian.
So m uch, then, for the first horn o f the dilem m a. B efore we com e to
the second horn, on which the utilitarian is allowed to o bject to his
o pponents’ argument on the ground that their exam ple would not in
the actual world be realized, I wish to m ake a m ethodological
rem ark which may help us to find our bearings in this rather
com plex dispute. Utilitarianism , like any other theory o f moral
reasoning that gets anywhere near adequacy, consists o f two parts,
one form al and one substantial. T he form al part is no m ore than a
rephrasing o f the requirem ent that moral prescriptions be
universalizable; this has the consequence that equal interests o f all
are to be given equal weight in our reasoning: everybody to count
for one and nobody for m ore than one. O ne should not expect such
a form al requirem ent to generate, by itself, any substantial con
clusions even about the actual world, let alone about all logically
possible worlds. But there is also a substantial elem ent in the
theory. This is contributed by factual beliefs about what interests
people in the real world actually have (which depends on what they
actually want to like or dislike, and on what they would want or like
or dislike under given conditions); and also about the actual effects
on these interests o f different actions in the real world. G iven the
truth o f these beliefs, we can reason m orally and shall com e to
certain moral conclusions. But the conclusions are not generated by
the form al part o f the theory alone.
Utilitarianism therefore, unlike som e other theories, is exposed
to the facts. T h e utilitarian cannot reason a priori that whatever the
13 S e e m y ‘ E th ical T h e o ry and U tilita ria n ism ', in H . D . L ew is, e d ., Contem porary
B ritish P h ilo so p h y 4 (L o n d o n , 1976), and the re fe re n ce s given there.
i 8o R. M. H A R E
facts about the w orld and human nature, slavery is wrong. H e has to
show that it is wrong by showing, through a study o f history and
other factual observation, that slavery does have the effects
(nam ely the production o f misery) which m ake it wrong. This,
though it m ay at first sight appear a weakness in the doctrine, is in
fact its strength. A doctrine, like som e kinds o f intuitionism ,
according to which we can think up exam ples as fantastic as we
please and the doctrine will still com e up with the same old answers,
is really showing that it has lost contact with the actual world with
which the intuitions it relies on w ere designed to cope. Intuitionists
think they can face the world armed with nothing but their inbred
intuitions; utilitarians know that they have to look at what actually
goes on in the world and see if the intuitions are really the best ones
to have in that sort o f world.
14 F o r the e ffe cts o f slavery on slaves and slave-o w n ers, see O . P atterson ,
S o cio lo g y o f Slavery; and S. M . E lk in s, Slavery (C h ic a g o , 1959).
15 R . C . D a lla s, T he H istory o f the M aroons (L o n d o n , 1803; reprin ted b y F ra n k
C a ss, 1968). I h ave not b een able to ob tain th e b o o k again to v erify this re feren ce.
182 R. M. H A R E
T h e most fundam ental point is one about the human nature o f the
slave which m akes ownership by another m ore intolerable for him
than for, say, a horse (not that we should condone cruelty to
horses). M en are different from other animals in that they can look
a long w ay ahead, and therefore can becom e an object o f deterrent
punishment. O ther anim als, we may suppose, can only be the
o bject o f Skinnerian reinforcem ent and Pavlovian conditioning.
T h ese m ethods carry with them , no doubt, their own possibilities of
cruelty; but they fall short o f the peculiar cruelty o f human slavery.
O ne can utter to a man threats o f punishment in the quite distant
future which he can understand. A piece o f human property,
th erefore, unlike a piece o f inanimate property or even a brute
anim al in a m an’s possession, can be subjected to a sort o f terror
from which other kinds o f property are immune; and, human
owners being what they are, many will inevitably take advantage of
this fact. That is the reason for the atrocious punishments that have
usually been inflicted on slaves; there would have been no point in
inflicting them on animals. A slave is the only being that is both able
to be held responsible in this w ay, and has no escape from , or even
redress against, the pow er that this ability to threaten confers upon
his oppressor. If he w ere a free citizen, he would have rights which
w ould restrain the exercise o f the threat; if he w ere a horse or a
piece o f furniture, the threat would be valueless to his owner
because it w ould not be understood. B y being subjected to the
threat o f legal and other punishm ent, but at the same time deprived
o f legal defences against its abuse (since he has no say in what the
laws are to b e , nor much ability to avail him self o f such laws as there
are) the slave becom es, or is likely to becom e if his master is an
ordinary hum an, the most m iserable o f all creatures.
N o doubt there are other facts I could have adduced. But I will
end by reiterating the general point I have been trying to illustrate.
T h e wrongness o f slavery, like the wrongness o f anything else, has
to be shown in the world as it actually is. W e can do this by first
reaching an understanding o f the m eaning of this and the other
m oral words, which brings with it certain rules o f moral reasoning,
as I have tried to show in other p laces.16 O ne o f the most important
16 S ee fo o tn o te 13 a b o v e , and m y Freedom and R eason (O x fo rd , 1963), esp ecially
ch ap. 6.
W H A T IS W R O N G W I T H S L A V E R Y ? 183
o f these rules is a formal requirem ent reflected in the G olden Rule:
the requirem ent that what w e say we ought to do to others we have
to be able to say ought to be done to ourselves were we in precisely
their situation with their interests. A n d this leads to a way o f m oral
reasoning (utilitarianism) which treats the equal interests o f all as
having equal weight. Then w e have to apply this reasoning to the
w orld as it actually is, which will mean ascertaining what will
actually be the result o f adopting certain principles and policies, and
how this will actually im pinge upon the interests o f ourselves and
others. O nly so can we achieve a m orality suited for use in real life;
and nobody who goes through this reasoning in real life will adopt
principles which perm it slavery, because o f the miseries which in
real life it causes. U tilitarianism can thus show what is wrong with
slavery; and so far as I can see it is the kind o f moral reasoning best
able to show this, as opposed to m erely protesting that slavery is
wrong.
Jan et R a d c liffe R ich a rd s, 'S e p a rate S p h eres’ . C o p y rig h t © J a n e t R a d cliffe R ich ards
1986. Printed b y perm ission o f D a v id H igh am A sso c ia te s for the author.
A n earlier v ersio n o f this ch ap ter w as d elivered in the Q u an ce R e v isite d L e ctu re
S eries as part o f the U n iv e rsity o f S ask a tch e w a n ’s 75th ann iversary celeb ratio n s in
S a sk a to o n . C a n a d a , on 9 O ct. 1984. Parts o f this h itherto un pu blish ed essay are
tak e n from the a u th o r’s The S ceptical Fem inist (L o n d o n , 1980), bu t the argu m en t has
b e en co n sid e rab ly rearran g ed and e xte n d ed . T h e presen t version has b een sp ecially
w ritten fo r this a n th ology.
1 R u sk in , O f Q u e e n ’s G ardens, p. 143, q u o ted K a te M illett, Sexu a l Politics,
p. 132.
l86 JANET RADCLIFFE RICHARDS
remains in essence the same. It is still widely regarded as obvious
that the sexes are different, and that therefore as a m atter o f course
any w ell-judging society must have different expectations o f them
and treat them in different ways.
Sentim ents such as these are frequently expressed in such a way
as to m ake the whole idea sound very nice and considerate: a
sensitive division o f labour for the good o f all, with each individual
being encouraged to contribute w hatever is most suitable for them 2
to give. But in spite o f the sugary gloss o f ‘equal but different’ so
often given to the account o f the separate spheres, to the feminist it
seem s that the arrangem ent is nothing like one o f equality. Scratch
the egalitarian veneer even slightly, and all the differences o f role
betw een the sexes seem to depend on w om en’s being less strong,
less rational, less creative, and less just about everything else worth
while than m en, which supposed deficiencies have traditionally
been the excuse for excluding wom en from everything men have
been inclined to keep for them selves. Through all the euphem ism
there still com es the view o f A ristotle, who attem pted no such
tactful suggestion o f equality in difference when he said that a
fem ale was fem ale in virtue o f a certain lack o f qualities, and
Thom as A qu in as, who thought a fem ale was a defective male.
It is not surprising, then, that when feminists protest about the
lowliness o f w om en’s sphere, they nearly always start by attacking
the low ly ideas about wom en which provide the traditional justifica
tion for keeping them confined to their place. If they are against the
whole principle o f separate spheres, they will deny that there are
any significant differences betw een the sexes: differences which are
adm itted to have any existence at all outside the self-serving male
im agination are attributed to m en’s own m anipulation o f wom en.
If, on the other hand, they o bject m ore to the relative status o f the
spheres than to their existence as such, and want w om en’s sphere to
be equal or even superior to m en’s, they will agree that the sexes are
different but m aintain that tradition is wrong about the nature o f the
2 T h is is a fem in ist ‘ th em ’ , not an in ad verten tly ungram m atical o n e. I share the
v iew that the best solu tion to th e problem o f finding a sex-n eu tral pron ou n w ithout
d o in g to o m uch vio le n ce to the lan gu age is to adop t and e xten d the a lread y c olloq u ial
use o f ‘ th e y ’ and ‘ th em ’ as sin gu lar and sex-n eu tral. T h e sim ilar exten sion o f the
plural ‘y o u ’ to a singular u sag e, a lon g tim e a g o , serves as b oth a p reced en t and a
m od el.
SEPARATE SPHERES
d ifferences.3 In both cases objections to traditional view s about the
spheres are supported by objections to traditional beliefs about
the sexes.
H ow ever, although far too m any myths about the natures of
w om en and men have been around for far too long, and although it
is certainly right that they should be challenged, there are problem s
about doing so in this particular context. W hether by accident or
design, the irritating pronouncem ents about fem ale inferiority have
so engrossed fem inist attention that the structure o f traditionalist
argument in defence o f the separate spheres has too often slipped
past unnoticed, and as a result the opposition has been allow ed to
get away with som e extraordinary sleights o f hand. For the time
being, therefore, it m ay be interesting to forget all debates about
the natures o f the sexes— conceding for the sake o f argument even
the most outrageous claims any detractor o f wom en m ay care to
m ake— and concentrate instead on the rem arkable piece of
reasoning by which the positions o f wom en and men have for so
long been justified.
3 Som e fem inists w h o are co n cern ed w ith the natu re o f the spheres rather than
th eir existen ce claim that w o m e n ’ s ch aracteristics h ave trad ition ally been under
valued rather than m isdescribed . T h e y typically th in k , for in stan ce, th at nurturing
skills should h ave far m ore status than is the case at presen t. T h is m eans in e ffe ct that
th ey m ust be seen as b ein g m ore co n cern ed w ith disputes a bou t the first prem iss o f
th e argu m en t to be discussed b e lo w than the second: th ey o b je c t to tradition al ideas
ab o u t the a p p ro p riate treatment o f p eo p le w ith variou s kinds o f q u ality. H o w e v e r,
here to o the d isagreem en t is a bo u t on e o f the prem isses o f the argu m en t, rather than
its stru ctu re, and since (as w ill appear) the co n cern o f this p a p er is w ith the stru ctu re,
th ere has been no n eed to go into a separate discussion o f this m atter.
JANET RADCLIFFE RICHARDS
trying to distort wom en out o f their natural fem ininity, they would
presum ably have no objection to adding such a premiss. W hen that
is done the argument goes roughly like this:
3
I am not claim ing that the forces o f darkness— or even those among
their num ber capable o f recognizing such a thing as rout by
argum ent— should by now have scattered in disarray. M uch m ore
can be said before the defence o f separate spheres need be
abandoned, and som etim es traditionalists scarcely seem to notice
this breach o f their front line, so im m ediately do they regroup and
try again.
The next m oves are as predictable as the original argument.
N early all appeal to som e general good to be brought about through
selection efficiency and the saving o f tim e, or, perhaps slightly less
often, to ideas that wom en are incom petent to understand their own
best interests. So, for instance, it may be said that in fact there often
is a need for rules specifically excluding wom en from certain
activities, even though none o f them w ould get in on the basis of
existing criteria, because for their own good wom en should not be
allow ed to waste their energies in pursuit o f goals which will always
196 JANET RADCLIFFE RICHARDS
elude them . O r it m ay be said that considerations o f efficiency often
dem and that all wom en should be excluded from som ething even
when only most wom en are unsuitable, because if we allowed
selection systems to be clogged with swarms o f incom petent appli
cants just for the sake o f one or two exceptional ones who did
happen to be com petent, everyone w ould suffer in the long run.
T h ere is no space to go into these by ways here (which is a pity,
because they are most entertaining) but there are im portant things
to say about such arguments in general.
First, although they are often presented as such, they do not work
as refutations o f the kinds o f argument I have been putting forward
so far. M y arguments have them selves been rebuttals o f another
argum ent, and all I claim to have done is show that that particular
argument in support o f the separate spheres does not w ork. This is,
o f course, quite com patible with the spheres’ being effectively
defended in other ways, and the possible arguments about
efficiency and the like are not objections to my dismissal o f the
original argum ent, but new arguments to the original conclusion.
T h ey invariably bring in additional premisses. It has already been
shown that prem isses about w om en’s unsuitability for particular
kinds o f w ork (for instance) are not enough on their own to justify
special w om an-excluding rules, and in order to escape this difficulty
it is necessary for them to be supplem ented with claims about such
m atters as the dam age wom en will do to them selves or others if they
are allow ed to com pete. These new arguments do not rescue the
original argum ent, therefore, and they seem to be tried only when
that has failed (at least, I have never seen them given as the original
argum ent in favour o f separate spheres).
In one w ay, o f course, that does not m atter, since if som eone
produces a good argument for the separate spheres at the fifteenth
attem pt it is none the less a good argument. Still, it is a m atter of
som e political and psychological interest that so m any peop le’s
conviction that there should be separate spheres seem s to remain
constant while their justifications tag along behind. People who
produce the original argument usually present it as their reason for
wanting the separate spheres; if on its failure they anxiously seek
around for other justifications it is not unreasonable to suspect that
their real reasons for wanting the separation have little to do with
SEPARATE SPHERES 197
the argum ents they are putting forward, and that those real reasons,
w h atever they are (and w hether or not they are consciously held),
m ay be unsuitable for public exposure.
Second, all such rescue attem pts are direct responses to the
challenge addressed to the logic o f the traditional argum ent, and
concentrate on avoiding that particular pitfall. T o that extent they
usually succeed. H ow ever, what their producers seem som etim es to
forget is that even though an argument must be unsound if its logic is
bad, it is not necessarily sound if its logic is good. Premisses have to
be plausible or otherwise acceptable as well. So far in this paper
traditionalist premisses have been left unchallenged for the sake of
dem onstrating the m istakes in traditionalist logic, but that is not a
thing to be allow ed indefinitely; a good argument must be good in
all respects, and anyone arguing in defence o f a conclusion must be
able to provide a positive justification o f the premisses used (it is not
enough to produce premisses which the opposition cannot prove
wrong). T here is, how ever, a strong tendency for the arguments in
the second line o f d efence o f the separate spheres to achieve logical
success only at the cost o f falling headlong into em pirical or m oral
absurdity.9 For instance, in order to carry through a paternalistic
argum ent that there should be rules specifically excluding wom en
from certain activities for their own good, it would be necessary to
find good grounds— not just prejudice and wishful thinking— for
believing both that these activities w ere particularly bad for wom en
and that wom en w ere so generally incom petent to judge their own
interests that they would be seriously dam aged by being allowed to
try. M ost o f the second-line arguments turn out to have problem s o f
these kinds. This is not to say that it is impossible to find a good
argument to the desired conclusion, but the task may not be as
straightforward as som e people appear to think.
Finally, anyone who is inclined to join in the attem pts to save the
traditionalist position should be aware o f yet another requirem ent
which must be met by any successful argument. If the idea is to
defend anything like the traditional separate spheres, the argument
produced must justify not just any kind o f separation, but one o f the
right sort. A n o th er m istake made by many w ould-be defenders of
9 I discuss this m atter in slightly m ore d etail in ‘ D iscrim in a tion ’ , P roceed in gs o f
th e A risto telia n S ocie ty S u pp. V o l. L I X , 1985.
198 JANET RADCLIFFE RICHARDS
tradition is that o f producing arguments which, even if they w orked
in other respects, would succeed only in justifying a separate-
spheres arrangem ent quite unlike the traditional one. B efore
people get too far in their attem pts to find new justifications for the
separate spheres, therefore, they should m ake sure they know what
it is they need to justify.
4
It is at this point that questions about the relative status o f the
traditional spheres start to arise. D efenders o f tradition, as was said
earlier, often m ake out that what they want is nothing m ore than a
useful division o f labour for the convenience o f all, with no question
o f any inequality. E ven though they may have som e difficulty in
finding a justification o f the division in the first place, therefore,
they may still fall back on claims about the spheres’ essential
equality. It is frequently claim ed that the pressures which separate
the sexes provide no ground for fem inist fuss in particular, since
men are quite as badly o ff in their own sphere as wom en are in
theirs; indeed, let pursuers o f this line warm to their task for a little,
and it is usually not long before they start to claim that things are
actually much worse for men than wom en.
This w ould be very surprising, if true. Notwithstanding som e
obvious potential disadvantages o f the m ale role (conscription,
som e conventions o f chivalry and so on) wom en bent on escape
from the fem ale sphere do not usually run into hordes o f oppressed
m en swarm ing in the opposite direction, trying to change places
with their w ives and secretaries. A n yo n e com m itted to the project
o f believing six im possible things before breakfast might try
interpreting this striking lack o f enthusiasm as a sign o f generosity to
w om en, but it is much easier to suspect that it shows w here the real
advantage lies. H ow ever, to confirm this suspicion we must con
sider directly the natures o f the traditional spheres.
T h ese have varied a good deal over space and tim e, and it is
im possible to attem pt any historical or geographical survey here;
the discussion will unfortunately have to be limited to recent
W estern culture and stay at a very general level. H ow ever, it is
probably true that the essentials o f the arrangem ents have always
SEPARATE SPHERES 199
been much the sam e, so that a discussion even o f such a restricted
period and area is likely to have at least limited application else
w here .10This is particularly likely to be true if we start by going back
in time a little, since present conventions and attitudes can often be
better understood through the m ore clearly defined social arrange
ments out o f which they developed. W hat, then, w ere the arrange
ments for the position o f each sex a century or two ago, before
recent reform s m odified them ?
T h e essence o f the situation is unm istakable. There was far m ore
to the separate spheres than any convenient division o f labour. In
fact most o f the social arrangem ents, institutions, and customs
which defined the relative position o f the sexes had the effect of
placing women in the power and service o f some m a n }'
T h ere is no exaggeration here. It must be rem em bered that what
is at issue has nothing to do with anyon e’s feelings, nor even with
the treatm ent o f individual wom en by individual men. W e are
concerned with the form al and inform al social institutions of
various kinds which have brought the sphere separation about, and
so m any o f these have been com pletely explicit that the facts about
them are incontrovertible. T here w ere laws about the control of
husbands over wives and fathers over daughters, and obstacles in
the way o f w om en’s controlling property. T here w ere rules keeping
wom en from nearly every kind o f activity which might have given
them status or independence (reinforced by their being kept out o f
any education which might have suited them to such activities), and
as a result forcing them to depend for support on men. The kind of
w ork regarded as the proper province o f wom en was ‘private’ , and
10 If th ere are any so cieties w h ere the treatm en t o f w om en is radically d ifferen t
from w h at is to be o u tlin ed h ere, the rem ain in g a rgu m en ts o f this p a p er will not apply
to th e m . It is not essen tial to fem inism to claim th at the opp ression o f w om en m ust be
essen tially the sam e the w orld o v er— even th o u gh , as a m atter o f fact, it p ro b a b ly is
m uch the sam e in k in d , and d ifferen t m ainly in d eg ree.
" T h e arran gem en t o f the sep arate sph eres is actu ally rath er m ore com p licated
than this acco u n t suggests: th ere is also a straigh tforw ard elem en t o f sim ply
d esign atin g so m e kinds o f w o rk as w o m e n 's and som e as m en 's, and the tw o elem en ts
in teract in co m p lica ted w ays. H o w e v e r, a full accoun t o f the situation w ou ld tak e far
m ore space than is a va ilab le h ere, and w ou ld not m uch a ffect m y argum ents. T h e
e lem en t I discuss is the m ost im portant o n e. F u rth erm o re, a n yo n e trying to d efen d
th e sep a ra te sph eres in th eir full tradition al co m p lex ity w o u ld h ave to d efen d the
e lem en t I discuss and oth ers as w e ll, so the sim plification o f the accoun t w o rk s to m y
o p p o n e n ts' a d v a n ta g e, not to m ine.
200 JANET RADCLIFFE RICHARDS
could take place only within a home headed by a breadwinning
m an, so that wom en who w ere forced to m ake their own living
found that the only w ork available to them was o f low status and
appallingly paid. T here w ere severe penalties for ‘fallen w om en’ ,
which kept wom en bound to a particular man. T h ere w ere laws
which made it pretty well im possible for wom en to escape from the
pow er o f tyrannical husbands, since they would have had to
sacrifice nearly everything, including their children, in the process.
A n d to ratify it all, wom en w ere form ally excluded from the making
o f law, so that until som e men w ere willing to cham pion their cause
there was little hope o f their being able to change much o f it.
T o see the position o f wom en in this way is to see clearly what the
fem inine sphere traditionally was: it was one in which all endeavour
and activity was confined to achieving a particular end. The ideal
wom an has never been one who was w eak and incom petent; hardly
any man can ever have wanted a total loss o f a wom an. Fem ale
perfection was a m atter o f devoting all abilities to being useful to a
particular man and his offspring, using a great deal o f skill (the m ore
the better) but always carefully directing it so that it presented no
threat to m en’s position. U nfem ininity lay in showing signs o f trying
to escape this situation. It was unfeminine o f wom en to want to
study at universities or have the vote or urge their own opinions
against their husbands because in doing so they w ere displaying
ideas about stepping beyond their allotted sphere. Higher
education, political pow er and independent opinions w ere not
am ong the requirem ents for being a wife and m other, and to seek
them was to try to com pete with men and becom e independent of
them , rather than rem aining in service.
So the separation o f spheres never produced anything like an
equal division o f function betw een men and wom en; there is
nothing in the least com parable about the m ale sphere. The demands
o f the m ale sphere have never involved dependence on w om en, or
even much adaptation to them , except for certain responsibilities to
fam ilies and certain conventions o f chivalry and courtship. In fact
the m ale sphere has contained virtually everything generally valued
in society, and the main way in which reference to wom en com es
into the account o f masculinity is in the demand that a man should
be o f higher status than his w om enfolk and exert proper authority
SEPARATE SPHERES 201
over them (the least m asculine man is the one who is henpecked).
This is why ‘fem ininity had to be achieved, cultivated and
preserved, while m asculinity could be left to look after itse lf’ .12
O f course, things are now nothing like as bad as they used to be:
rules and conventions directing wom en towards the service o f men
have lessened considerably both in extent and in firmness of
enforcem ent. N evertheless, to the extent that there do still remain
different conventions for proper m ale and fem ale activity and
dem eanour, nearly all are o f the traditional kind. A lth ou gh they no
longer force all wom en into the pow er o f men, they still create an
asym m etry o f status and dependence.
For instance, to the extent that boys and girls are given different
educations, what distinguishes the girls’ is that it is hom e-directed,
with needlew ork, cookin g, ‘home econom ics’ , and so on. The
‘com m ercial’ courses which are the exception still prepare them for
what is nearly always service to a man outside the hom e. Consider
also the significance o f girls’ having been encouraged to take arts
rather than science subjects, or biology rather than the hard
scien ces.13 T h en , away from school, it is a rare home in which the
man will not presum e as a m atter o f course that w hatever a w om an’s
professional or other com m itm ents, she will take responsibility for
dom estic m atters (even if he occasionally ‘does the washing up for
M ary’ , so m aking it clear that the act is supererogatory because it is
really M ary’s job ). A g ain , to the extent that different behaviour is
approved for men and w om en, it usually involves w om en’s not
putting them selves forw ard, not nagging, being loyal, dropping
tactful hints instead o f m aking open criticisms, going along with
what the man suggests and so on. W om en’s m agazines still dispense
advice about how to be a highly com petent assistant or partner to a
man without m aking him feel threatened: how to cover up for your
boss when he m akes m istakes; how to get what you want for the
fam ily by letting your husband think he thought o f it. A t a more
sophisticated level, m anuals o f sexual success instruct experienced
wom en in the art o f leading men sexually while giving the
5
H ow , then, can traditionalists set about justifying this asym metrical
arrangem ent? Their arguments vary in detail, but as usual they tend
to depend on claim s about the natures o f men and wom en o f a kind
which provoke (usually legitim ate) feminist wrath, nearly all having
to do with m ale strength and dom inance, fem ale helplessness and
need o f protection, and consequent-fem ale need o f the male.
H ow ever, it is once again worth resisting the tem ptation to be
distracted into squabbles about these questions o f fact, and
concentrating instead on the logic o f the arguments.
T h e simplest o f the fam iliar arguments are to the effect that social
arrangem ents reflect the natural state o f things: men dom inate
w om en just because they are dom inant; wom en are attached to men
and dependent on them because they are naturally inclined to
attachm ent and dependence. But if men and wom en just are like
that, what is the purpose o f the rules and pressures supposed to be?
SEPARATE SPHERES 203
Y o u can hardly justify the existence o f pressures by claims that what
they are supposed to achieve w ould happen anyw ay, without them.
Y o u cannot sneer at a henpecked man on the grounds that a man
ought to be head o f his household and claim that men should be
heads o f households because they are naturally dom inant; if they all
w ere, there w ould be nothing to sneer at, and if there is som ething
to sneer at, som e m en at least are by the criterion o f dom inance
unsuited to the position o f headship. A ll such simple argum ents, at
least in their fam iliar form s, are non-starters.
T h e m ore com plex arguments are about w om en’s need of men.
T h e w eak need the protection o f the strong, it is said, or
childbearing wom en need men to look after them and get the food.
H ere, how ever, things get even worse. These arguments not only
run into the already discussed difficulties o f trying to deduce
conclusions about men and wom en from premisses about such
qualities as strength and weakness; they also m anage to get into new
and im pressive tangles o f their own.
T o take the argum ent about strength and weakness first, consider
what you w ould do if you w ere really setting out in an unprejudiced
w ay to arrange for the protection o f the w eak. Y o u w ould probably
start by trying to m ake the w eak stronger, or by giving them extra
powers to defend them selves. Y o u might also try to lessen the
p ow er o f the strong, or at least m ake rules to prevent their getting
out o f hand. T he very last thing you w ould do is system atically
deprive the w eak o f all other options in order to force them to
depend on the strong, and then provide social and legal powers to
m ake the strong stronger still, as has been the case with wom en and
men. The idea that the w eak can be protected by being abandoned
to the pow er o f the strong involves as rem arkable a piece o f twisted
reasoning as can ever have been d evised .14
M uch the same goes for arguments about the needs of
childbearing wom en. If you w ere really concerned about the w ell
6
G iven the high casualty rate among arguments in defence o f the
separate spheres doctrine, the question naturally arises o f why
anyone should want to enforce or encourage it at all. Since this
enquiry is philosophical rather than anthropological or psychologi
cal it cannot go into that question directly, but it can raise the
related one o f what a logically sound and em pirically plausible
justification o f the separate spheres w ould look like. A n d in view of
15 M o st o f th ese argu m en ts do not even attem pt to exp lain w h y the su p p o sed ly
n ecessary su pport cou ld not be given by o th er w om en.
SEPARATE SPHERES 205
the extrem e perversity o f traditional argum ents, radical measures
suggest them selves. R ather like the Fairy Q ueen in lolanthe, who
sorted out an intractable tangle o f problem s by the simple expedient
o f inserting the word ‘not’ into an inconvenient item o f fairy law, we
might see w hether we could im prove on traditional arguments just
by denying what was usually asserted.
W e can start with another observation o f M ill’s:
T h e g e n e r a l o p in io n o f m en is su p p o se d to b e th a t th e n atu ra l v o c a tio n o f a
w o m a n is th at o f a w ife a n d m o th e r. I sa y , is su p p o se d to b e , b e c a u se
ju d g in g fro m a cts— fro m th e w h o le o f th e p re se n t c o n stitu tio n o f so c ie ty —
o n e m ig h t in fe r th at th eir o p in io n w a s th e d ire c t c o n tra ry . T h e y m ig h t b e
su p p o s e d to th in k th at th e a lle g e d n a tu ra l v o c a tio n o f w o m e n w a s o f all
th in g s th e m o st re p u g n a n t to th e ir n a tu re , in so m u ch th at if th e y a re fre e to
d o a n y th in g e lse . . . th e re w ill n o t b e e n o u g h o f th em w h o w ill b e w illin g to
a c c e p t th e c o n d itio n said to b e n a tu ra l to t h e m .16
17 H u m e d o e s give essen tially this argum ent fo r ‘the m o d esty and ch astity w hich
b e lo n g to the fair se x ’ ( Treatise o f H um an Nature, III, xii).
18 E v e n this d o es n ot w o rk as a ju stification o f recent m odified v ersion s o f
tradition al arran gem en ts. A lth o u g h th ese are less bad in th em selves th ey are even
hard er to ju stify in any co h eren t w a y , a ccep tab le or u n acceptable.
19 In g e n e ra l, if som e social arrangem en t gives b enefits to o n e gro up o f p e o p le , the
onus o f p r o o f is on an yon e w h o w ants to argu e that the arrangem en ts also p rodu ce
so m e general go o d . I discuss this m atter m ore fu lly in ‘ D iscrim in a tion ’ , ibid.
210 JANET RADCLIFFE RICHARDS
which m ake them helpless without the protection o f a man. W e are
also expected to overlook w om en’s rather striking extra ability, and
see the w hole essence o f fem aleness as a series o f inadequacies and
absences, while at the same time transform ing m en’s inability to
bear children into a special aptitude for everything else. If such
contortions form the basis o f the best set o f arguments in defence of
the traditional spheres which can be produced for public consum p
tion, it m ay reasonably be presum ed that ones which are m orally,
logically, and em pirically acceptable cannot lie im m ediately to
hand.
7
If the arguments o f this essay are right, they suggest an interesting
division in the ranks o f fem inism ’s opponents. O n the one hand,
there are the real opponents: the still-determ ined defenders o f
tradition, who should now either admit that they are
straightforw ardly out to defend the privileges o f m en, or subside
until they m anage to find a better defence o f the separate spheres.
O n the other hand, there is a large and surprising group who count
them selves am ong the opposition, but who now turn out, according
to their own principles, to have been against the separate spheres all
along. A ll those traditionalists who com plain that feminists are
putting pressure on wom en to m ake them act against their natures
can now see that they must in consistency (unless they want to allow
fem inists to m onopolize logic) join fem inists in their opposition to
any kind o f im posed sphere separation, since such arrangem ents
distort wom en and men alike. The same is true o f anyone who wants
to defend the w eak conclusion o f the original separate spheres
argum ent (to return to that at last), and thinks that there should be
separate spheres because the sexes would drift into them by nature
if left to their own devices. Such people should be delighted to have
the opportunity to prove their point about natural sex differences by
joining in the struggle to get rid o f the artificially im posed ones.
H ow ever, feminists w ould perhaps be unwise to depend on a rush
o f support from these im probable allies. For one thing, it is not
unheard o f for people to persist in incoherent opinions. For
another, even people who do recognize that their arguments com
SEPARATE SPHERES 211
mit them to opposing the traditional separate spheres m ay just
change their tack. T h ey m ay start claim ing instead that arguments
about justifiability are now entirely beside the point, since the
spheres disappeared altogether some time ago.
This is a very com m on line of argum ent, and it means that
feminists need to be able to show not only that pressures to bring
about the separate spheres are unjustified, but also that they do still
exist. This is, o f course, largely an em pirical task, but there is still
philosophical w ork to be done in clarifying the various form s social
pressures m ay take. It is im portant to be able to block the fam iliar
m ove from ‘w om en can do anything now ’ (which is in som e sense
true) to the false conclusion that if wom en still find them selves in a
situation o f inferiority to men that must be because they just are
inferior.
It is true that feminists are not entitled to m ake any inference
from the relative situations o f men and wom en to the conclusion
that there are still restraints on wom en: the possibility has to be
allow ed for that there are real differences o f capability betw een the
sexes which w ould remain even in a situation of equal opportunity.
O n the other hand, neither are the opponents o f fem inism entitled
to claim that because (at least in the liberal W est) wom en can now
choose to own property, enter the professions and even bring up
children alone, all traces o f the separating pressures have
disappeared. T h e spheres m ay be much m ore nebulous than fo r
m erly, but as long as social forces o f any kind m ake anything more
difficult for the m em bers o f one sex as such than for the other, men
and wom en are still pushed in different directions, and the spheres
still exert their influence.20 A n d in fact, once the various ways in
which they m anifest them selves are recognized, differentiating
pressures can still be seen to pervade even the most liberal of
societies.
sim iliar beings, and should have equal rights, while humans and
non-humans are different and should not have equal rights.
T h e thought behind this reply to T a y lo r’s analogy is correct up to
a point, but it does not go far enough. There are important
differences betw een humans and other animals, and these
differences must give rise to som e differences, in the rights that each
have. R ecognizing this obvious fact, how ever, is no barrier to the
case for extending the basic principle o f equality to non-human
anim als. T h e differences that exist betw een men and wom en are
equally undeniable, and the supporters o f W om en’s Liberation are
aw are that these differences m ay give rise to different rights. M any
feminists hold that wom en have the right to an abortion on request.
It does not follow that since these same people are cam paigning for
equality betw een men and wom en they must support the right o f
men to have abortions too. Since a man cannot have an abortion, it
is m eaningless to talk o f his right to have one. Since a pig can’t vote,
it is m eaningless to talk o f its right to vote. T here is no reason why
either W om en ’s Liberation or A nim al Liberation should get in
volved in such nonsense. T h e extension o f the basic principle o f
equality from one group to another does not imply that we must
treat both groups in exactly the same w ay, or grant exactly the same
rights to both groups. W hether we should do so will depend on the
nature o f the m em bers o f the two groups. T h e basic principle of
equality, I shall argue, is equality o f consideration; and equal
consideration for different beings m ay lead to different treatm ent
and different rights.
So there is a different way o f replying to T a y lo r’s attem pt to
parody W ollstonecraft’s argum ents, a way which does not deny the
differences betw een humans and non-hum ans, but goes m ore
deeply into the question o f equality, and concludes by finding
nothing absurd in the idea that the basic principle o f equality applies
to so-called ‘brutes’ . I believe that we reach this conclusion if we
exam ine the basis on which our opposition to discrimination on
grounds o f race or sex ultim ately rests. W e will then see that we
w ould be on shaky ground if we w ere to dem and equality for blacks,
w om en, and other groups o f oppressed humans while denying equal
consideration to non-humans.
W hen we say that all human beings, w hatever their race, creed,
2 l8 PETER SINGER
or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Those who wish to
defend a hierarchical, inegalitarian society have often pointed out
that by w hatever test w e choose, it simply is not true that all humans
are equal. L ike it or not, we must face the fact that humans com e in
different shapes and sizes; they com e with differing moral capaci
ties, differing intellectual abilities, differing amounts o f benevolent
feeling and sensitivity to the needs o f others, differing abilities to
com m unicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience
pleasure and pain. In short, if the dem and for equality w ere based
on the actual equality o f all human beings, we w ould have to stop
dem anding equality. It would be an unjustifiable dem and.
Still, one might cling to the view that the dem and for equality
am ong human beings is based on the actual equality o f the different
races and sexes. A lthou gh humans differ as individuals in various
w ays, there are no differences between the races and sexes as such.
From the m ere fact that a person is black, or a wom an, we cannot
infer anything else about that person. This, it may be said, is what is
w rong with racism and sexism. The white racist claims that whites
are superior to blacks, but this is false— although there are
differences betw een individuals, some blacks are superior to some
whites in all o f the capacities and abilities that could conceivably be
relevant. T h e opponent o f sexism w ould say the same: a person’s
sex is no guide to his or her abilities, and this is why it is unjustifiable
to discriminate on the basis o f sex.
This is a possible line o f objection to racial and sexual discrimi
nation. It is not, how ever, the way som eone really concerned about
equality w ould choose, because taking this line could, in some
circum stances, force one to accept a most inegalitarian society. The
fact that humans differ as individuals, rather than as races or sexes,
is a valid reply to som eone who defends a hierarchical society like,
say, South A frica , in which all whites are superior in status to all
blacks. T h e existence o f individual variations that cut across the
lines o f race or sex, how ever, provides us with no defence at all
against a m ore sophisticated opponent o f equality, one who pro
poses that, say, the interests o f those with IQ ratings above 100 be
preferred to the interests o f those with IQ s below 100. W ould a
hierarchical society o f this sort really be so much better than one
based on race or sex? I think not. But if we tie the moral principle o f
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL 219
equality to the factual equality o f the different races or sexes, taken
as a w hole, our opposition to racism and sexism does not provide us
with any basis for objecting to this kind o f inegalitarianism .
T h ere is a second im portant reason why we ought not to base our
opposition to racism and sexism on any kind o f factual equality,
even the limited kind which asserts that variations in capacities and
abilities are spread evenly betw een the different races and sexes: we
can have no absolute guarantee that these abilities and capacities
really are distributed evenly, without regard to race or sex, among
human beings. So far as actual abilities are concerned, there do
seem to be certain m easurable differences between both races and
sexes. These differences do not, of course, appear in each case, but
only when averages are taken. M ore important still, we do not yet
know how much o f these differences is really due to the different
genetic endowm ents o f the various races and sexes, and how much
is due to environm ental differences that are the result o f past and
continuing discrimination. Perhaps all o f the im portant differences
will eventually prove to be environm ental rather than genetic.
A n y o n e opposed to racism and sexism will certainly hope that this
will be so, for it will m ake the task o f ending discrimination a lot
easier; nevertheless it w ould be dangerous to rest the case against
racism and sexism on the b elief that all significant differences are
environm ental in origin. The opponent of, say, racism who takes
this line will be unable to avoid conceding that if differences in
ability did after all prove to have some genetic connection with race,
racism w ould in som e way be defensible.
It w ould be folly for the opponent o f racism to stake his whole
case on a dogm atic com m itm ent to one particular outcom e o f a
difficult scientific issue which is still a long way from being settled.
W hile attem pts to prove that differences in certain selected abilities
betw een races and sexes are prim arily genetic in origin have
certainly not been conclusive, the same must be said o f attem pts to
prove that these differences are largely the result o f environm ent.
A t this stage o f the investigation we cannot be certain which view is
correct, how ever much we m ay hope it is the latter.
F ortunately, there is no need to pin the case for equality to one
particular outcom e o f this scientific investigation. The appropriate
response to those who claim to have found evidence o f genetically-
220 PETER SINGER
based differences in ability between the races or sexes is not to stick
to the b elief that the genetic explanation must be w rong, w hatever
evidence to the contrary m ay turn up: instead we should m ake it
quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on
intelligence, m oral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of
fact. E quality is a m oral ideal, not a simple assertion o f fact. T h ere is
no logically com pelling reason for assuming that a factual difference
in ability betw een two people justifies any difference in the amount
o f consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests. The
principle o f the equality o f human beings is not a description o f an
alleged actual equality am ong humans: it is a prescription o f how we
should treat humans.
Jerem y Bentham incorporated the essential basis o f moral
equality into his utilitarian system o f ethics in the form ula: ‘E ach to
count for one and none for m ore than o n e .’ In other words, the
interests o f every being affected by an action are to be taken into
account and given the same weight as the like interests o f any other
being. A later utilitarian, H enry Sidgw ick, put the point in this way:
‘T h e good o f any one individual is o f no m ore im portance, from the
point o f view (if I m ay say so) o f the U niverse, than the good o f any
o th er.’ 1 M ore recently, the leading figures in m odern moral philos
ophy have shown a great deal o f agreem ent in specifying as a
fundam ental presupposition o f their moral theories som e similar
requirem ent which operates so as to give everyon e’s interests equal
consideration— although they cannot agree on how this require
m ent is best form u lated .2
It is an im plication o f this principle o f equality that our concern
for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what
abilities they possess— although precisely what this concern
requires us to do m ay vary according to the characteristics o f those
affected by what w e do. It is on this basis that the case against racism
and the case against sexism must both ultim ately rest; and it is in
accordance with this principle that speciesism is also to be
condem ned. If possessing a higher degree o f intelligence does not
1 The Methods o f Ethics (7th e d n .), p. 382.
2 F o r e x a m p le , R . M . H are , Freedom and Reason (O x fo rd , 1963) and J. R a w ls, A
Theory o f Justice (H arv a rd , 1972); fo r a b rie f accoun t o f the essential agreem en t on
this issue b e tw e e n th ese and o th er positions, see R . M . H are , ‘ R u les o f W ar and
M o ra l R e a so n in g ’ , Philosophy and Public Affairs, v o l. I, no. 2 (1972).
ALL A NIM ALS ARE EQUAL 221
entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle
humans to exploit non-humans?
M any philosophers have proposed the principle o f equal
consideration o f interests, in some form or other, as a basic moral
principle; but, as we shall see in m ore detail shortly, not m any o f
them have recognized that this principle applies to m em bers of
other species as well as to our own. Bentham was one o f the few who
did realize this. In a forw ard-looking passage, written at a time
when black slaves in the British dom inions w ere still being treated
much as we now treat non-human animals, Bentham wrote:
T h e d a y m ay c o m e w h e n th e rest o f th e a n im al c re a tio n m a y a cq u ire th o se
rig h ts w h ich n e v e r c o u ld h a v e b e e n w ith o ld e n fro m th em bu t b y th e h a n d o f
ty r a n n y . T h e F re n c h h a v e a lre a d y d is c o v e re d th a t th e b la c k n e ss o f th e skin
is n o re a so n w h y a h u m a n b e in g sh o u ld be a b a n d o n e d w ith o u t re d ress to th e
c a p ric e o f a to rm e n to r. It m a y o n e d a y c o m e to b e r e c o g n iz e d th at th e
n u m b e r o f th e le g s , th e v illo s ity o f th e sk in , o r th e te rm in a tio n o f th e os
s a c r u m , a re re a so n s e q u a lly in su fficie n t fo r a b a n d o n in g a se n sitiv e b e in g to
th e sa m e fa te . W h a t e lse is it th at sh o u ld tra c e th e in su p e ra b le lin e ? Is it th e
fa c u lty o f re a s o n , o r p e rh a p s th e fa c u lty o f d isco u rse ? B u t a fu ll-g ro w n
h o rse o r d o g is b e y o n d co m p a ris o n a m o re ra tio n a l, as w e ll as a m o re
c o n v e r s a b le a n im a l, th an an in fa n t o f a d a y , o r a w e e k , o r e v e n a m o n th ,
o ld . B u t su p p o s e th e y w e re o th e rw is e , w h a t w o u ld it a v a il? T h e q u e stio n is
n o t, C a n th e y re a so n ? n o r C a n th e y talk? b u t, C an they su ffe r ? 3
p rotein lost to hum ans in this w ay is eq u iva len t to 90 p er cent o f the annual w orld
p rotein d eficit. F o r a b rie f acco u n t, see F ran ces M o o re L a p p e , Diet fo r a Small Planet
(F rien d s o f T h e E arth /B allan tin e, N e w Y o r k , 19 7 1), pp. 4 - 1 1 .
6 A lth o u g h o n e m ight th ink that killing a b ein g is o b vio u sly the ultim ate w ron g
o n e can do to it, I th in k that the infliction o f su fferin g is a c lea rer in dication o f
speciesism b ecau se it m ight be argu ed that at least part o f w hat is w ron g w ith killin g a
hum an is that m ost hum ans are con sciou s o f th eir existen ce o v er tim e, and h ave
d esires and p u rp oses that exte n d into the fu tu re— see, for in stan ce, M . T o o le y ,
'A b o rtio n and In fan ticid e’ , Philosophy and Public Affairs, v ol. 2, no. 1 (1972 ). O f
co u rse , if o n e to o k this v iew o n e w o u ld h ave to hold— as T o o le y d oes— that killin g a
hum an infant o r m en tal d efe ctive is not in itself w ro n g, and is less seriou s than killing
certain h igh er m am m als that p ro b a b ly do h ave a sense o f their ow n existen ce over
tim e.
7 R u th H arriso n , Anim al Machines (L o n d o n , 1964). F o r an accoun t o f farm ing
con d ition s, see m y Anim al Liberation (N ew Y o r k , 1975).
224 PETER SINGER
see if certain substances are safe for human beings, or to test some
psychological theory about the effect o f severe punishment on
learning, or to try out various new com pounds just in case
som ething turns up . . .
In the past, argument about vivisection has often missed this
point, because it has been put in absolutist terms: W ould the
abolitionist be prepared to let thousands die if they could be saved
by experim enting on a single animal? T h e way to reply to this purely
hypothetical question is to pose another: W ould the experim enter
be prepared to perform his experim ent on an orphaned human
infant, if that w ere the only way to save m any lives? (I say ‘orphan’
to avoid the com plication o f parental feelings, although in doing so I
am being over-fair to the experim enter, since the non-human
subjects o f experim ents are not orphans.) If the experim enter is not
prepared to use an orphaned human infant, then his readiness to use
non-hum ans is simple discrim ination, since adult apes, cats, m ice,
and other m am m als are m ore aware o f what is happening to them ,
m ore self-directing and, so far as we can tell, at least as sensitive
to pain, as any human infant. T here seems to be no relevant
characteristic that human infants possess that adult mammals do
not have to the same or a higher degree. (Som eone might try to
argue that what m akes it wrong to experim ent on a human infant
is that the infant w ill, in time and if left alone, develop into
m ore than the non-hum an, but one w ould then, to be consistent,
have to oppose abortion, since the foetus has the same potential as
the infant— indeed, even contraception and abstinence might be
w rong on this ground, since the egg and sperm , considered jointly,
also have the sam e potential. In any case, this argument still gives
us no reason for selecting a non-hum an, rather than a human
with severe and irreversible brain dam age, as the subject for our
experim ents.)
T h e experim enter, then, shows a bias in favour o f his own species
w henever he carries out an experim ent on a non-human for a
purpose that he would not think justified him in using a human
being at an equal or low er level o f sentience, awareness, ability to
be self-directing, etc. N o one fam iliar with the kind o f results
yielded by most experim ents on animals can have the slightest
doubt that if this bias w ere elim inated the num ber o f experim ents
ALL A NIM ALS ARE E Q U A L 225
perform ed w ould be a minute fraction o f the num ber perform ed
today.
E xperim enting on anim als, and eating their flesh, are perhaps the
two m ajor forms o f speciesism in our society. B y com parison, the
third and last form o f speciesism is so m inor as to be insignificant,
but it is perhaps o f some special interest to those for whom this
article was written. I am referring to speciesism in m odern
philosophy.
Philosophy ought to question the basic assumptions o f the age.
Thinking through, critically and carefully, what most people take
for granted is, I believe, the chief task o f philosophy, and it is this
task that m akes philosophy a worthwhile activity. R egrettably,
philosophy does not always live up to its historic role. Philosophers
are human beings and they are subject to all the preconceptions o f
the society to which they belong. Som etim es they succeed in
breaking free o f the prevailing ideology: m ore often they becom e its
most sophisticated defenders. So, in this case, philosophy as
practised in the universities today does not challenge anyone’s
preconceptions about our relations with other species. B y their
writings, those philosophers who tackle problem s that touch upon
the issue reveal that they m ake the same unquestioned assumptions
as most other humans, and what they say tends to confirm the
reader in his or her com fortable speciesist habits.
I could illustrate this claim by referring to the writings o f philos
ophers in various fields— for instance, the attem pts that have been
m ade by those interested in rights to draw the boundary o f the
sphere o f rights so that it runs parallel to the biological boundaries
o f the species H om o sapiens, including infants and even mental
d efectives, but excluding those other beings o f equal or greater
capacity who are so useful to us at m eal-tim es and in our laborato
ries. I think it would be a m ore appropriate conclusion to this
chapter, how ever, if I concentrated on the problem with which we
have been centrally concerned, the problem o f equality.
It is significant that the problem o f equality, in m oral and political
philosophy, is invariably form ulated in terms of human equality.
T h e effect o f this is that the question o f the equality o f other animals
does not confront the philosopher, or student, as an issue itself—
and this is already an indication o f the failure o f philosophy to
226 PETER SINGER
challenge accepted beliefs. Still, philosophers have found it difficult
to discuss the issue o f human equality without raising, in a
paragraph or tw o, the question o f the status o f other animals. The
reason for this, which should be apparent from what I have said
already, is that if humans are to be regarded as equal to one
another, we need som e sense o f ‘equ al’ that does not require any
actual, descriptive equality o f capacities, talents, or other qualities.
If equality is to be related to any actual characteristics o f humans,
these characteristics must be some lowest com m on denom inator,
pitched so low that no human lacks them— but then the philosopher
com es up against the catch that any such set of characteristics which
covers all humans will not be possessed only by humans. In other
words, it turns out that in the only sense in which we can truly say, as
an assertion o f fact, that all humans are equal, at least some
m em bers o f other species are also equal— equal, that is, to each
other and to humans. If, on the other hand, w e regard the statement
‘A ll humans are equ al’ in some non-factual w ay, perhaps as a
prescription, then, as I have already argued, it is even m ore difficult
to exclude non-humans from the sphere o f equality.
This result is not what the egalitarian philosopher originally
intended to assert. Instead o f accepting the radical outcom e to
which their own reasonings naturally point, how ever, most philos
ophers try to reconcile their beliefs in human equality and animal
inequality by argum ents that can only be described as devious.
A s an exam ple, I take W illiam F ran kena’s w ell-know n article,
‘T h e C oncept o f Social Justice’ . Frankena opposes the idea of
basing justice on m erit, because he sees that this could lead to highly
inegalitarian results. Instead he proposes the principle that ‘ . . . all
men are to be treated as equals, not because they are equal, in any
respect, but simply because they are human. T h ey are human
because they have em otions and desires, and are able to think, and
hence are capable o f enjoying a good life in a sense in which other
animals are n o t.’ 8
But what is this capacity to en joy the good life which all humans
h ave, but no other anim als? O ther animals have em otions and
desires, and appear to be capable o f enjoying a good life. W e may
doubt that they can think— although the behaviour o f som e apes,
8 In R . B ra n d t (e d .), S o cia l Justice (E n g le w o o d C liffs, 1962), p. 19.
ALL A NIM ALS ARE EQUAL 227
dolphins, and even dogs suggests that some o f them can— but what
is the relevance o f thinking? Frankena goes on to admit that by ‘the
good life’ he means ‘not so much the m orally good life as the happy
or satisfactory life’ , so thought would appear to be unnecessary for
enjoying the good life; in fact to em phasize the need for thought
w ould m ake difficulties for the egalitarian since only some people
are capable o f leading intellectually satisfying lives, or m orally good
lives. This m akes it difficult to see what Frankena’s principle of
equality has to do with sim ply being human. Surely every sentient
being is capable o f leading a life that is happier or less m iserable
than som e alternative life, and hence has a claim to be taken into
account. In this respect the distinction betw een humans and non
humans is not a sharp division, but rather a continuum along which
we m ove gradually, and with overlaps betw een the species, from
sim ple capacities for enjoym ent and satisfaction, or pain and
suffering, to m ore com plex ones.
Faced with a situation in which they see a need for som e basis for
the m oral gulf that is com m only thought to separate humans and
anim als, but can find no concrete difference that will do the job
without underm ining the equality o f humans, philosophers tend to
waffle. T h ey resort to high-sounding phrases like ‘the intrinsic
dignity o f the human individual’ .9 T h ey talk o f the ‘intrinsic worth
o f all m en’ as if men (hum ans?) had som e worth that other beings
did n o t,10 or they say that humans, and only humans, are ‘ends in
them selves’ , while ‘everything other than a person can only have
value for a person’ . 11
This idea o f a distinctive human dignity and worth has a long
history; it can be traced back directly to the Renaissance humanists,
for instance to Pico della M irandola’s Oration on the Dignity o f
Man. Pico and other humanists based their estim ate o f human
dignity on the idea that man possessed the central, pivotal position
in the ‘G reat Chain o f B ein g ’ that led from the lowliest form s o f
m atter to G o d him self; this view o f the universe, in turn, goes back
to both classical and Judaeo-Christian doctrines. M odern philos
9 F ra n k e n a , o p. c i t .. p. 23.
10 H . A . B e d a u , 'E ga litarian ism and the Idea o f E q u a lity ' in N o m o s IX: E qu ality ,
e d . J. R . P e n n o ck and J. W . C h a p m a n , N ew Y o r k , 1967.
11 G . V la s to s , ‘Justice and E q u a lity ' in B ra n d t, S o cia l Justice, p. 48.
228 PETER SINGER
ophers have cast o ff these m etaphysical and religious shackles and
freely invoke the dignity o f m ankind without needing to justify the
idea at all. W hy should we not attribute ‘intrinsic dignity’ or
‘intrinsic w orth’ to ourselves? Fellow humans are unlikely to reject
the accolades we so generously bestow on them , and those to whom
w e deny the honour are unable to object. Indeed, when one thinks
only o f humans, it can be very liberal, very progressive, to talk of
the dignity o f all human beings. In so doing, we im plicitly condem n
slavery, racism, and other violations o f human rights. W e admit that
we ourselves are in som e fundam ental sense on a par with the
poorest, most ignorant m em bers o f our own species. It is only when
we think o f humans as no m ore than a small sub-group o f all the
beings that inhabit our planet that w e may realize that in elevating
our own species we are at the same time low ering the relative status
o f all other species.
T h e truth is that the appeal to the intrinsic dignity o f human
beings appears to solve the egalitarian’s problem s only as long as it
goes unchallenged. O nce w e ask why it should be that all humans—
including infants, m ental defectives, psychopaths, H itler, Stalin,
and the rest— have som e kind o f dignity or worth that no elephant,
pig, or chim panzee can ever achieve, we see that this question is as
difficult to answer as our original request for some relevant fact that
justifies the inequality o f humans and other animals. In fact, these
two questions are really one: talk o f intrinsic dignity or m oral worth
only takes the problem back one step, because any satisfactory
defence o f the claim that all and only humans have intrinsic dignity
w ould need to refer to som e relevant capacities or characteristics
that all and only humans possess. Philosophers frequently introduce
ideas o f dignity, respect, and worth at the point at which other
reasons appear to be lacking, but this is hardly good enough. Fine
phrases are the last resource o f those who have run out o f
argum ents.
XIV
P la y e r B
S cisso rs Paper
S cisso rs 0 ,0 + 1 5 ,- 1 5
P la y e r A
P aper -15,+15 0, 0
Figure 1
H ere the top right-hand com partm ent, for exam ple, represents
the pay-offs to the players if A does scissors and B does paper. The
first num ber represents the num ber o f sweets lost or won by A , the
second the num ber lost or won by B.
C learly the only rational m ove for either player is scissors. If he
m akes this m ove the worst that can happen to him is a draw, and he
m ay in theory win fifteen sweets if the other player is sufficiently ill-
advised as to try paper. In practice if both players are rational the
GAM ES THEORY AN D THE N U C LE A R ARMS RACE 2^1
upshot will be a m onotonous game: an endless series o f draws with
both players repeating scissors.
This is an exam ple o f what is known technically as a ‘zero-sum ’
gam e. It is sufficient for our present purposes if I define a zero-sum
gam e as one in which in each box the pay-offs for the two players in
that box sum to zero. In practice this m eans that such a gam e is
strictly com petitive. Since no m oney or other asset is com ing into
the reckoning during the gam e but the players are m erely redividing
betw een them selves the assets which they already have, no
advantage is to be gained by them form ing any agreem ent betw een
them selves. T here is no scope for fruitful ‘preplay jock eyin g’ .
Contrast with this the most fam ous exam ple o f a non zero-sum
gam e, the so-called ‘Prisoners’ D ilem m a’ (attributed to A . W .
T u cker) (Figure 2).
C o n fe s s io n N o C o n fe s s io n
C o n fe s s io n — 2, — 2 5
+ > . — 15
A
N o C o n fe s s io n — 15 , + 1 5 0 ,0
F ig u re 2
If you confess and the other prisoner confesses then you will both
be given a nom inal sentence fey a minor offence which we would
be able to get you convicted of— two years in prison would be the
total you w ould serve. If neither o f you confesses then you will
both be released without charge. But (and this is a big but) if one
o f you confesses and the other does not then the confessor will be
aw arded a free holiday in the Baham as but the other prisoner will
be sent to prison for the full term of fifteen years.
232 NICHOLAS MEASOR
In the matrix + 15 represents the value o f a holiday in the
Baham as, - 1 5 that o f fifteen years in jail, 0 release scot-free, and
—2 the nom inal sentence.
B y what process o f reasoning should the prisoner decide on his
course o f action? In fact, if he is reasonably sensible he will argue
like this:
E ither the other prisoner will confess, or he will not. L e t’s first
suppose that he does. Then if I confess I shall receive a nominal
sentence but if I do not then I shall find m yself in prison for fifteen
years. So I’ll be better o ff confessing. Suppose on the other hand
that he keeps quiet. Then if I confess I’ll earn m yself a fabulous
holiday, but if I clam up I’ll simply be allow ed to return hom e. So
w hatever he does I’d be better advised to confess.
B
(U S S R )
A rm D isa rm
A A rm -2 , -2 + 15, - 1 5
(U S )
D isa rm — 1 5 ,+ 1 5 0 ,0
F ig u re 3
B
1 2
1 + 2 ,+ 2 + 1 5 ,- 1 5
A
2 - 1 5 ,+15
F ig u re 4
238 NICHOLAS MEASOR
So the altruist, although he may arrive at a m ore satisfactory
rapprochem ent in the Prisoners’ D ilem m a, is liable in the long run
to find life no m ore rewarding an affair than the self-interested does.
It might be suggested that the answer lies in some sort o f com pro
mise: be an altruist when it leads to the most satisfactory results and
self-interested when that pays o ff better. But the merits o f this
proposal are chim erical. For the upshot o f a strategy adopted in a
particular situation can only be judged satisfactory or otherwise
against the fixed background o f som e consistent view about o n e’s
goals in life. A policy o f oscillating betw een altruism and self-
interest does not constitute such a background but is instead a form
o f philosophical schizophrenia. Indeed, many o f the decisions taken
during o n e’s altruistic phases will com e to be a source o f bitter
regret during o n e’s periods o f self-interest.
II
U SSR
F ire D o n ’t F ire
F ire -5 0 0 , -5 0 0
US
D o n ’ t F ire 0, 0
F ig u re 5
T h e m am m oth negative figures in the top left box reflect the fact
that if either party fires, a nuclear exchange ensues resulting in
catastrophic losses to both sides. W hy are two o f the boxes scored
out? N om inally, I suppose, if one side fired and the other did not
then the firer might hope to gain som e advantage (although quite
w hat, if his opponent w ere a victim o f nuclear devastation, is less
than clear). But since the whole point o f this gam e is that if one side
fires the other side will always retaliate, the only rational course for
a participant is to discount the top right and bottom left boxes
altogether, and assume that firing will always m ove him into the top
left box.
T h e gam e is easy to play, since the choice is betw een firing and
earning —500 or not doing so and earning 0. So if M A D , and
therefore nuclear deterrence, obtains, the m odest negative figures
in the top left box o f the Prisoners’ D ilem m a m atrix, which obtain
when neither side disarms, are perfectly appropriate to the arms
race. T h ey should, how ever, be less advantageous than 0 (say, - 2
as abo ve), since the chance o f a nuclear exchange starting by
accident is never to be discounted, nor should we forget the
potentially ruinous cost o f the w eaponry.
So much for M A D . L et us now consider what matrix is
appropriate for a very different kind o f strategic situation, nam ely
one where both contestants have what I shall call first-strike
capacity (possibly diverging from the standard use o f this term by
strategists). In my usage o f the term a contestant has first-strike
240 NICHOLAS MEASOR
capacity when he has the ability o f destroy all his opponent’s
weapon delivery systems in a single attack in such a way as to
prevent his opponent retaliating with nuclear arms (note that to
possess a first-strike capacity in this sense requires one to be able to
evade or disable the en em y’s early warning system).
Figure 6 is not too far o ff the m ark for the appropriate matrix.
U SSR
F ire D o n ’t F ire
D o n ’ t F ire - 2 5 0 ,+ 1 0 0 ,0
F ig u re 6
H ere the figures for disutility associated with being fired on may
be som ewhat arbitrary. I am taking it that having all your rocket
silos destroyed by nuclear attack is definitely bad news, since there
is radioactive fall-out to contend with on top o f massive im m ediate
loss o f life from other causes, but that it is not as bad as having your
cities wiped out as in the M A D scenario. T he firer in the top right
and bottom left boxes earns + 10 because he does not him self
becom e the victim o f nuclear attack, having knocked out the
en em y’s w eapons. He does indeed obtain political advantage, but I
have reduced this from 15 (as in the Prisoners’ D ilem m a matrix) to
10 since the conquest o f an opponent who has suffered extensive
nuclear attack must be less advantageous than the gains to be
reaped from defeating him by nuclear blackm ail.
O bviously as the matrix stands the rational course (in that
situation) is to fire, since if I do not fire I will achieve either 0 or
- 2 5 0 , w hereas firing will bring in + 10 .
T h e top left box is crossed out since the nature o f the gam e is that
he who has been fired upon cannot him self fire. This is not strictly
speaking correct since both parties might fire sim ultaneously, with a
resulting score o f -2 5 0 , -2 5 0 . This is perhaps a relatively unlikely
event, although it should not be discounted com pletely if both
G A M E S T H E O R Y A N D T H E N U C L E A R A R M S R A CE 24I
contestants are follow ing the same course o f reasoning at the same
time.
T hese notional figures for the top left box do not, how ever,
provide any further reason for hesitation. Suppose that I am
deliberating about w hether to fire at a time t. The enem y m ay or
m ay not fire at t. If he does fire at t my position if I do fire
sim ultaneously is no worse than if I do not fire ( —250 in each case).
B u t if he does not fire at 1 1 am much better o ff if I do fire then. So I
should fire— and as soon as possible, since the probability o f his
firing during the next ten minutes is greater than the probability o f
his firing during the next five.
A n o th er possible ‘gam e’ is one in which, say, the U S does have
first-strike capacity but the U S S R does not. The matrix looks like
Figure 7.
U SSR
F ire F irst + 10 , -2 5 0
US
D o n ’t F ire
F irst -5 0 0 , -5 0 0 0, o
F ig u re 7
U SSR
A rm D isa rm
A rm - 1 2 0 ,- 1 2 0 + 1 5 ,- 1 5
US
D isa rm - 1 5 , + 15 0 ,0
F ig u re 8
A P P E N D IX
USSR
Insincere Sincere
Figure A i
U SSR
In sin ce re S in c e re
In sin c e re - A , —B +C, -D
US
S in c e re —E , + C o, 0
F ig u re A 2
T h e same reasoning does not, how ever, apply in the case where
one side has first-strike capacity and the other does not, and the
matrix for the arm/disarm gam e is in that case nothing like the
Prisoners’ D ilem m a. For the side which does not have first-strike
capacity but is threatened by a foe who does, firing first is (as w e ’ve
seen) not a serious option, the pay-off being —500. So his strategy
GAMES THEORY AN D THE NUC LE AR ARMS RACE 255
alternative to sincerely disarming is keeping his arms but doing
nothing with them . L et us assume that it is the U S S R which has the
first-strike capacity and the U S which does not.
L et us say that the disarm ament period lasts from now to t, and let
us consider the pay-offs over a period from now to t + , where t+ is
later than t. L et p3 be the probability o f the U S S R attacking the U S
betw een now and t + , and let p2 be the probability o f the U S S R
attacking the U S during the disarm ament period. The matrix for the
relevant decision will now look like Figure A 3 .
U SSR
K e e p arm s D isa rm
K e e p arm s - 2 5 0 x p3 . . . .
US
D isa rm — [(250 x p2) + 15 (1 - p 2 ) ] . . . .
F ig u re A 3
D a v i d H u m e ( 1 7 1 1 - 7 6 ) ra n k s a m o n g th e g r e a te st o f B ritish p h ilo s o p h e rs .
H e w a s a lso c e le b r a te d fo r his h isto rica l w o rk s and his essa y s o n p o litica l
a n d e c o n o m ic to p ics. H is c h ie f p h ilo s o p h ic a l w o rk s a re A Treatise o f
F lum a n N a tu re and A n E n q u iry C o n cern in g the P rin cip les o f H u m a n
M o ra ls.
J a m e s R a c h e l s is P r o fe s s o r o f P h ilo s o p h y at th e U n iv e rs ity o f A la b a m a
at B irm in g h a m . H e is th e a u th o r o f T he E n d o f L ife : E u tha n asia and
M orality (198 6 ) a n d T h e E lem en ts o f M o ra l P h ilo so p h y (198 6 ).
John H a r r i s is S e n io r L e c tu r e r in P h ilo s o p h y in th e D e p a r tm e n t o f
E d u c a tio n , U n iv e r s ity o f M a n c h e ste r. H e is th e a u th o r o f V io le n ce &
R esp o n sib ility (1980 ) a n d T h e V a lu e o f L ife: A n In tro d u ctio n to M ed ic a l
E th ic s (19 8 5 ).
L o u i s P a s c a l is an in d e p e n d e n t re s e a rc h e r in th e field o f o v e rp o p u la tio n .
H is p h ilo s o p h ic a l in te re sts in clu d e e s p e c ia lly issu es in e th ics a risin g fro m
th e p o p u la tio n e x p lo s io n ; h u m a n n a tu re ; a n d th e n a tu re o f co n sc io u sn e ss.
H e h a s p u b lish e d tw o p a p e r s in Inq uiry.
J o n a t h a n G l o v e r is F e llo w o f N e w C o lle g e , O x fo r d . H e is th e a u th o r o f
s e v e r a l b o o k s on e th ics a n d e d ito r o f T he P h ilo so p h y o f M in d (1 9 7 6 ), w h ich
is a lso p u b lish e d in this series.
258 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
D e r e k P a r f i t is a S e n io r R e s e a rc h F e llo w at A ll S o u ls C o lle g e , O x fo r d ,
an d a lso te a c h e s as a V is ito r at N e w Y o r k U n iv e rs ity . H e is th e a u th o r o f
R e a so n s an d P e r so n s (19 8 4 ).
R . M . H a r e is G r a d u a te R e s e a r c h P r o fe s so r at th e U n iv e rs ity o f F lo r id a ,
G a in e s v ille . H e w a s W h ite ’ s P r o fe s so r o f M o r a l P h ilo s o p h y at C o r p u s
C h r is ti C o lle g e , O x fo r d , u n til 1983. H is b o o k s in clu d e T h e L a n g u a g e o f
M o r a ls (19 5 2 ), F re ed o m an d R ea son (19 6 3 ), a n d M o r a l T h in k in g (19 8 1 ).
P e t e r S i n g e r is P r o fe s s o r o f P h ilo s o p h y and D ir e c t o r o f th e C e n tr e fo r
H um an B io e th ic s at M o n a sh U n iv e r s ity , M e lb o u r n e , A u s tr a lia . H is
p u b lic a tio n s in c lu d e A n im a l L ib e r a tio n , P ra ctica l E th ic s, T h e E x p a n d in g
C ir c le , T h e R ep r o d u c tio n R ev o lu tio n (w ith D e a n e W e lls ), a n d S h o u ld the
B a b y L iv e ? (w ith H e lg a K u h s e ) .
N i c h o l a s M e a s o r is L e c tu r e r in P h ilo s o p h y at th e U n iv e r s ity o f L e ic e s
te r. H e has p u b lish e d a rtic le s on a w id e ra n g e o f p h ilo s o p h ic a l to p ic s , in
p a rtic u la r sp a c e , tim e , and p e rs o n a l id e n tity .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GENERAL
M a n y o f th e b e s t e x a m p le s o f a p p lie d e th ics a re to b e fo u n d in jo u rn a l
a rtic le s , p a rtic u la rly in P h ilo so p h y an d P u b lic A ffa ir s , w h ich b e g a n
p u b lic a tio n in 19 7 1 , a n d m o re re c e n tly in th e J o u r n a l o f A p p lie d
P h ilo s o p h y , w h ich p u b lish e d its first issu e in 1984. E th ic s a lso p u b lish e s
so m e a p p lie d a rtic le s. M o r e sp e c ia liz e d jo u rn a ls in clu d e E n v iro n m en ta l
E th ic s, th e J o u r n a l o f M e d ic a l E th ic s a n d B io eth ic s. B e c a u s e o f th e la rg e
n u m b e r o f a rtic le s on e a c h o f th e to p ics liste d b e lo w , I h a v e re s tric te d th e
s u g g e s tio n s fo r fu rth e r re a d in g to b o o k s . M a n y o f th ese a re a n th o lo g ie s ,
c o n ta in in g so m e o f th e m o re im p o rta n t a rtic le s. M o s t b o o k s c o n ta in
b ib lio g ra p h ie s w h ich w ill g u id e th e re a d e r to o th e r b o o k s a n d a rtic le s in th e
s p e c ific field .
R e a d e rs n o t fa m ilia r w ith e th ic a l th e o r y m a y w ish to b e g in w ith an
in tro d u c tio n to this a re a . J. R a c h e ls ’s T h e E lem en ts o f M o r a l P h ilo so p h y
(198 6 ) is b r ie f, c le a r, a n d a le rt to th e a p p lica tio n s o f e th ic a l th e o ry . M o r e
a d v a n c e d w o rk s in clu d e R . H a r e , F reed om a n d R ea son (19 6 3) a n d M o ra l
T h in k in g (1 9 8 1 ); J. R a w ls , A T h eo ry o f Ju stice (1 9 7 r ) and R . B . B r a n d t, A
T h eo ry o f the G o o d an d the R ig h t (19 7 9 ).
M o v in g o n to a p p lie d e th ics its e lf, u se fu l g e n e r a l a n th o lo g ie s in clu d e :
R a c h e l s , J ., M o r a l P r o b le m s (3rd e d n ., 1979).
W a s s e r s t r o m , R . , T o d a y 's M o r a l P r o b le m s ( 2 n d e d n . , 1 9 7 9 ) .
N a r v e s o n , J ., M o r a l Issu es ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
V elasq u ez, M ., a n d R o s t a n k o w s k i , C . , E th ics: T h eo ry an d P ractice
( 1985)-
Death, Suicide, and Euthanasia
L u c re tiu s , O n T h e N a tu re o f T hin gs (v a rio u s e d itio n s) B k . 3 , 8 30-1094.
M . P a b st B a ttin a n d D . M a y o ( e d s .) , S u icid e: T he P h ilo s o p h ic a l Issu es
(1980 ).
G l o v e r , J ., C a u sin g D eath a n d Saving L iv e s (19 7 7 ) ch s. 1 - 8 , 1 3 - 1 5 .
W i l l i a m s , G . , T h e Sanctity o f L ife and the C rim in a l L a w (1958 ) ch . 8.
K u h s e H . and S i n g e r , P ., S h o u ld the B a b y L iv e ? (198 5).
S i n g e r , P ., P ra ctica l E th ic s ( 1 9 7 9 ), c h . 7.
S t e i n b o c k , B . , ( e d . ) , K illin g an d L ettin g D ie ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
26o BIBLIOGRAPHY
C o h e n , M ., N a g e l , T . a n d S c a n l o n , T . ( e d s .), M ed ic in e an d M o ra l
P h ilo s o p h y (1 9 8 1 ) Pt. I V .
R a c h e l s , J ., T he E n d o f L ife ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
H a r r i s , J ., T h e V a lu e o f L ife ( 1 9 8 5 ) , c h s . 1 - 4 .
R egan , T . , ( e d .) , M atters o f L ife and D eath, 2nd e d n ., 1986.
D o w n in g , A . B. a n d S m o k e r , B . ( e d . ) , V olu n tary E uthanasia: E xperts
D e b a te the R ig h t to D ie ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
Abortion
T o o l e y , M ., A b o r tio n an d In fa n ticid e ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
G risez , G . , A b o r tio n : T h e M yth s, the R ealities an d the A rg u m en ts (19 6 9 ).
B rody , B . , A b o r tio n an d the Sanctity o f H u m a n L ife : a P h ilo s o p h ic a l View
( 1975)-
Sum ner , L . W ., A b o r tio n an d M o r a l T heory (19 8 1 ).
F e i n b e r g , J. ( e d . ) , T h e P r o b le m o f A b o r tio n ( 1 9 7 3 ) .
G l o v e r , J . , C a u sin g D ea th an d Saving L iv e s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , c h s . 9 - 1 1 .
S i n g e r , P ., Pra ctica l E th ic s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , c h . 6.
H ar ris, J ., T h e V a lu e o f L ife (19 8 5 ), ch s. 6 -8 .
R egan , T . ( e d .) . M atters o f L ife and D ea th , 2nd e d n ., 1986.
World Poverty
A ik en , W. and L a F o lle tte , H. ( e d s .), W orld H u n g er and M o ra l
O b lig a tio n ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
B r o w n , P. and S h u e , H . ( e d s .) , F o o d P o lic y (19 7 7 ).
S hue , H ., B a sic R igh ts (1980 ).
S i n g e r , P ., P ra ctica l E th ic s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , c h . 8.
F i s h k i n , J ., T h e L im its o f O b lig a tio n ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
H ar ris, J ., V io le n ce an d R esp o n sib ility (1980 ).
D ow er , N ., W o rld Poverty: C h a llen g e an d R esp o n se (198 3 ).
B e i t z , C . , C o h e n , M . , S c a n l o n , T . a n d S i m m o n s , A . ( e d s . ) , International
E th ic s (19 8 5 ), P t. V .
R egan , T . ( e d .) . M atters o f L ife and D ea th , 2nd e d n ., 1986.
F e m in is m , E q u a lit y , a n d R e v e r s e D is c r im in a t io n
R a d c l i f f e R i c h a r d s , J ., T h e S cep tica l F em in ist (19 8 1 ).
M i d g l e y , M . and H u g h e s , J ., W o m en 's C h o ic e s: P h ilo s o p h ic a l P r o b lem s
F acin g F em in ism ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
J a g g a r , A . , F e m in ist P o litics an d H u m a n N a tu re ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
C o h e n , M ., N a g e l , T . a n d S c a n l o n , T . ( e d s . ) , E qu ality and P referential
Treatm ent ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
G o l d m a n , A . , Ju stice a n d R everse D iscrim in a tio n ( 1 9 7 9 ) .
S i n g e r , P ., P ra ctica l E th ic s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , c h . 2.
A n i m a l s a n d th e E n v i r o n m e n t
G o d l o v i t c h , R . , G o d l o v i t c h , S. and H a r r i s , J. ( e d s .), A n im a ls , M en an d
M o ra ls ( 1 9 7 2 ) .
S i n g e r , P ., A n im a l L ib era tio n ( 1 9 7 5 ) .
S i n g e r , P ., Pra ctica l E th ic s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , c h s . 3 , 5.
C l a r k , S ., T h e M o r a l Status o f A n im a ls ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
R e g a n , T ., T h e C a se f o r A n im a l R igh ts ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
R egan , T . ( e d .) , M atters o f L ife and D ea th , 2nd e d n ., 1986.
R e g a n , T . a n d S i n g e r , P . ( e d s . ) , A n im a l R igh ts and H u m a n O b lig a tio n s
(1976).
F r e y , R ., Interests an d R ights: T h e C a se A g a in st A n im a ls (1980).
F r e y , R ., R ights, K illin g an d S u fferin g (198 3 ).
M id g ley , M . , A n im a ls an d W hy T hey M atter (198 3 ).
E l l i o t . R . a n d G a r e , A . , E n v iro n m e n ta l P h ilo so p h y ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
S h r a d e r - F r e c h e t t e , K . , E n v iro n m e n ta l E th ic s ( 1 9 8 1 ) .
P a s s m o r e , J ., M a n ’s R esp o n sib ility f o r N a tu re ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
M c C l o s k e y , H . J ., E c o lo g ic a l E th ics an d P o litics ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
W a r a n d N u c le a r D e te r r e n c e
W alzer . M ., J u st an d U n ju st W ar (19 7 7 ).
W a s s e r s t r o m , R . ( e d . ) , W ar an d M orality ( 1 9 7 0 ) .
S c h e l l , J ., T h e F ate o f the E arth ( 1 9 8 2 ) .
B l a k e , N . and P o l e , K . ( e d s .), O b je ctio n s to N u clea r D e fe n c e (198 4).
B l a k e , N . and P o l e , K . ( e d s .) , D an gers o f D eterren ce (198 4).
M a c L e a n , D . ( e d .) , T h e Security G a m b le: D eterren ce D ilem m a s in the
N u clea r A g e (19 8 4 ).
B e i t z , C . , C o h e n , M ., S c a n l o n , T . a n d S i m m o n s , A . ( e d s .), Intern ational
E th ic s (1 9 8 5 ), P t. III.
INDEX OF NAMES
A y e r , A . J ., 2 n. K e lly , A . , 201 n.
A q u in a s , 1
A u g u s tin e , 1 L a k e , A . , 213 n.
L a p p e , F. M ., 223 n.
B a rn a b y , F ., 247 n. L o n g fo rd , E ., 173 n,
B a rry , B ., 145 n. L u c retiu s, 1, 15, 16 n.
B e d a u , H . A . , 227 n. L y o n s , D ., 130, 13 5-6.
B e n th a m , J ., 1, 220-1
B ra n d t, R . B ., 60 n ., 64 n. M c M a h a n , J. A . , 145 n ., 158 n .,
B ro a d , C . D ., 2 n. 160 n.
B ro d y , B . A . , 6 0 -1 , 72 n. M a rk s, P ., 201 n.
M e a so r, N ., 229-55
C a lla h a n , D ., 37 n. M ill, J. S ., 1, 9 7-10 4 , 16 1, 193,
C h o m sk y , N ., 94 203 n ., 205
C lo u g h , A . H ., 88 M o rge n ste rn , O ., 229
D a lla s, R . C . , 181 n. N a g e l, T ., 1
N eu m an n , J. v o n , 229
N e w c o m b ’s P ro b lem , 252
E b e rsta d t, N ., 121 n.
E e ls , E ., 252 n. N e w m a n , J. H ., 16 1, 164
E h rlich , P ., 108, 118 , 120, 121 n. N o o n a n , J r., T . T ., 38 n.
N o z ic k , R ., 16 n ., 148-9
E lk in s, S. M ., 181 n.
E z o rs k y , G ., 130
P arfit, D ., 16 n ., 145-64
P a sca l, L ., 105-23
F e ld m a n , D . M ., 38 n.
P a tterso n , O ., 170 n ., 181 n.
F o o t, P ., 78 n.
P e n tz , M ., 246-7
F ra n k e n a , W ., 226-7
P ico d ella M iran d o la , 227
P im e n te l, D ., 118 n.
G lo v e r , J., 125-44 Pius X I I , 41 n.
G o ld b e rg , P ., 213 n. P lin y , 25
P ro ste rm a n , R . L ., 121 n.
H am p sh ire, S ., 94
H a re , R . M ., 165-83, 220 n. R a c h e ls , J ., 3, 29-35
H arrim an , R . L ., 118 n. R a d c liffe R ich a rd s, J ., 18 5-214
H arris, J., 87-95 R a tc liffe , J. M ., 53 n.
H arriso n , J ., 142 R a w ls, J ., 153, 158, 220 n.
H arriso n , R ., 223 n. R u sk in , J ., 185
H o b b e s , T ., 1, 235 R u sse ll, B ., 2
H o d g so n , D . H ., 134-5 R y d e r , R ., 222 n.
H u m e , D ., 1, 19 -2 7, 209 n.
S am p so n , A . , 170 n.
J o a d , C . E . M ., 2 S am u elso n , P. A . , 146 n.
Joh n son , S ., 170 S e n e ca , 1, 23 n.
264 I N D E X OF N A M E S
S h a w , A . , 30 T o o le y , M ., 5 7-8 5 , 223 n.
S id g w ick , H ., 143, 16 1, 220 T u c k e r , A . W ., 231
S ik o ra , R . I ., 145 n.
S in g e r, P ., 135, 215-28
V la s to s , G ., 227 n.
S o b e l, J. H ., 130-1
S o lzh en itsy n , A . , 138, 140-2
S tra n g , C ., 135 W a rn o c k , M ., 4
W e rth e im e r, R .. 59 n, 6 1, 62, 63 n .,
T a citu s, 24 73 n.
T a y lo r , T ., 2 1 6 -1 7 W e ste rm a n n , W . L ., 168 n ., 170 n.
T h o m so n , J. J ., 3 7 -5 6 , 58 n ., 6 1-2 , W illia m s, B .. 138-40, 142, 177-8
72, 77 W o llsto n e c ra ft, M ., 2 1 6 -1 7