Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher often identified as the “father” of effective altruism, has made some controversial statements recently. He is known for his views that have resonated with some tech skeptics, particularly regarding artificial intelligence. Notably, Singer has controversially claimed that life for a newborn baby holds less value than that of a pig or a chimpanzee, and has also expressed support for bestiality, suggesting it is better than raising animals for food.
Since the 1970s, Singer has proposed that we should move beyond traditional ethical frameworks. He advocates for determining right and wrong based solely on interests and outcomes rather than moral absolutes.
Now at 80, Singer could have faded from public view like many philosophers of his time. However, his ideas have attracted significant attention from influential figures in Silicon Valley—like Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei. Critics argue that rather than seeking to avert risks posed by advanced AI, these leaders are more focused on consolidating their influence and pushing an agenda akin to a doomsday cult.
“In Peter Singer’s world, no one has rights,” remarked Scott Walter, former advisor to President George W. Bush and current head of the Capital Research Center. He added that in Singer’s moral landscape, the concepts of right and wrong are replaced by subjective interests and goals.
Polarizing Views
Singer’s perspective can lead to troubling implications. He famously wrote in his book “Practical Ethics” that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often, it is not wrong at all.” In the same work, he questioned the value of a newborn baby’s life compared to that of a non-human animal.
His views have not softened with time. In 2023, he mentioned in an interview that bestiality should be viewed more favorably than factory farming. According to Walter, “Singer is very clear in his beliefs that some animals can be considered superior to certain humans.”
Walter further draws troubling parallels between Singer’s views on the value of human life and those of Nazi Germany. He pointed out that Singer’s own background as a descendant of Holocaust victims makes this comparison even more poignant.
Understanding Effective Altruism
Effective altruism, which emerged from Singer’s writings and a TED Talk he gave in 2013, aims to apply a rigorous, mathematical approach to reducing suffering. Its advocates often argue that wealthy individuals should maximize their earnings and donate to the most impactful causes, which can lead to prioritizing efforts that target severe global issues over local ones.
Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher at the Capital Research Center, describes the movement as “reductionist” and suggests it serves as a means for people seeking meaning in a post-moral framework. For example, figure Sam Bankman-Fried initially claimed to want to make the world better—before rationalizing his accumulated wealth by arguing he could help even more people with it later.
AI Concerns
The implications of effective altruism extend into the realm of artificial intelligence. As discussions around AI become more urgent, supporters of effective altruism may overlook significant issues. Thayer notes that while climate change and animal rights were previously focal points, the pandemic shifted the narrative toward a more apocalyptic tone. Big money, like that from Bankman-Fried, also entered the discussion, providing funding for various initiatives.
That apocalyptic view now seems to be shifting towards concerns about AI. Observers note that while it can be easy to dismiss these figures as eccentric or overzealous, their ideas could pose real dangers. Previous doomsday movements often dissolve after failing to predict catastrophic events, but with AI, there’s a lack of clear timelines or methodologies that can be objectively tested.
Walter warns that the real issue might not be the philosophical underpinnings of AI concerns, but rather empowering those who advocate for strict governmental control over AI development. He cautions that such partnerships could entrench powerful interests rather than genuinely serve the public good.
Interestingly, former President Trump recently dismissed AI doomerism as a “hoax,” claiming that robots won’t take over humanity in his speeches.
As of Thursday, neither Singer, Altman, nor Amodei responded to inquiries regarding these topics.
