Вторая встреча в рамках цикла "Conversations on Classical Ethics": разговор с профессором Сингером

В 2021-м году в рамках совместного проекта Школы философии и культурологии ФГН и ИГИТИ им. А.В. Полетаева «Классика и классики этической мысли: ридер по этике» запускается серия бесед с ведущими современными философами о ключевых направлениях этической мысли, классике нравственной философии и ее месте в современном мире, роли этики как дисциплины в академическом пространстве. На второй встрече к участникам проектной группы присоединился Питер Сингер, профессор биоэтики им. Иры У. ДеКамп Принстонского университета (США), один из самых влиятельных моральных философов современности.

В 2021-м году в рамках совместного проекта Школы философии и культурологии ФГН и ИГИТИ им. А.В. Полетаева «Классика и классики этической мысли: ридер по этике» запускается серия разговоров с ведущими современными философами о ключевых направлениях этической мысли, классике нравственной философии и ее месте в современном мире, роли этики как дисциплины в академическом пространстве.

Вторая встреча в рамках серии Conversations on Classical Ethics состоялась 12 марта. К нашей группе присоединился Питер Сингер, именной профессор биоэтики им. Иры У. ДеКамп Принстонского университета, один из ведущих мировых специалистов в области прикладной этики, вдохновитель таких общественных движений, как эффективный альтруизм и движение за права животных. В своих работах профессор Сингер убедительно оспаривает наши обыденные взгляды на моральные обязательства, опираясь на утилитаристские основания. Он является автором, соавтором и редактором более 50 книг (таких как "Practical Ethics", "Animal Liberation", "The Expanding Circle", "The Life You Can Save", "The Point of View of the Universe" и других), которые были переведены более чем на 25 языков.

Участники проекта обсудили с профессором Сингером вопросы, связанные с проблематикой его известной статьи "Famine, Affluence and Morality", проблемами канона и классикализации в этике, ролью классики этической мысли в современном глобализованно мире, значения этики в наших повседневных жизнях.

Мероприятие прошло онлайн в закрытом формате. Видеозапись можно посмотреть на сайте проектной группы (в разделе "Conversations on Classical Ethics") и на Youtube-канале ИГИТИ.

*   *   *

Conceptual Explications

Your famous article ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’ more or less omits the problem of uncertainty of the outcomes of our moral actions (for example, you write that there are indeed some trustworthy international organizations that seek to help those in need, and that we should trust at least some of them). Looking at this problem several decades later, how would you assess the severity of the ‘uncertainty problem’? Do you think that the situation with trustworthy charities has improved over the last fifty years, as the world became more globalized?

Following the topic of globalization, in ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’ you mention the premise that instant communication and modern transportation – in sort, the development of the ‘global village’ – should affect our moral intuition, and this effect should be recognized. However, most people still think in terms of (imagined) communities which are contrasted with ‘strangers’ or ‘outsiders.’ When we think of maximum utility, which community should we think of? How can we ‘scale’ today’s perception of ‘utility for my people’?

Finally, two questions about different ethical theories. There is a challengeable tendency to create new approaches in contemporary ethics that combine different elements of classical normative theories. As a result, we may see such branches of utilitarianism as virtue utilitarianism. What do you personally think of such new approaches: do they enrich and fit in the utilitarian framework, or are they rather chimeras of the (‘classical’) theory because of their pretensions to take both sides?

There is a French theory of minimal ethics (Ruwen Ogiens), according to which our morality can be reduced to three main principles – (1) no harm principle, (2) equal consideration of everyone, and (3) moral behavior as an attitude towards others (and not towards oneself). Do you believe that there may exist such a moral attitude that can be only directed towards other people? Is it possible to be moral in relationships with others while being immoral, for instance, in your private life? What kind of morality is it? Do you agree that such an approach can be considered a ‘challenge’ to some kind of moral paternalism? Or, is it just the ‘morality of immoral’?

 

Theory and Practice

You famously spoke about the connection between theory and practice, philosophical discussions, and political actions. In ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’ you mentioned philosophy teachers and students who should take their discussions seriously and act on them. In your opinion, do courses on practical ethics (or predominance of the texts of applied ethics in syllabuses) have a bigger impact on the practical decisions of students (and professors) than the ones that focus on texts belonging to normative and meta-ethical areas (and the history of ethics)? If the answer is positive, would you advocate for applied ethics courses in different university programs’ core curriculums? Finally, how do you think one can engage the broader public in this discussion, and is it necessary at all?

Utilitarianism is definitely a practice-oriented theory, as we can see by the effective altruism movement. In your opinion, should a (contemporary) ethical theory be always linked to some practical activity and be socially grounded? Is there still some place for ‘pure’ philosophical theory? The question arises due to some inner and outer features: (1) the usual distinction between philosophizing and acting (though, as we can see, it can be easily withdrawn by the examples in the sphere of applied ethics, as huge companies hire practical philosophers for some kind of conceptual work and invest in their research); (2) an ‘eternal attempt’ to find the answer to the question whether philosophy exists for itself or whether it should react to some global events and give some kind of ‘guidance’ to people, helping them to reflect on the current agenda and navigate it (as it can be clearly seen in this time of COVID-19); (3) an attempt to popularize some philosophical ideas that can be articulated in real life.