Conflict in Peter Singer's philosophy : animal protection versus an obligation to give

Peter Singer is the most famous utilitarian of the modern era. As a prolific writer of more than thirty five years, he has amassed an extensive body of literature addressing diverse ethical problems. Despite his wide range, Singer remains best known for his contribution to two fields: the ethics of animal protection and the ethics of aid donation. Yet how well do those two tenets of Singer's scholarship fit together? Here it is argued that Singer's enjoinment to redistribute wealth away from the affluent of the developed world, in order to satisfy the essential needs of those in poverty, has radical implications for non-human animals, and those who seek to liberate them. Animal advocates, many of whom believe they are taking their cue from Singer, spend considerable sums of money caring for rescued animals. However, according to Singer, as so-called non-persons, animals have a preference to avoid pain, but not necessarily to live. If that is correct, spending money saving the life of an animal, at the cost of the life of persons living in dire conditions, would not be a utility maximising course of action. In this chapter these two tenets of Singer's work are considered, and it is concluded that Singer may not be a friend of the animals some animal advocates believe him to be.