Singer’s Troubled Analogy

Within Peter Singer’s “Not for Humans Only: The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues,” he implores the reasoning behind why humans feel a need to preserve animals within entire species, without including the benefit that these animals serve to humans. To do this, he supposes that the primary reason to avoid the eradication of entire species, is that it would be comparable to destroying a great work of art or architecture. Singer presents this analogy argument because it attempts to show that there is a “non-instrumental value”(Singer, 62) that a species itself holds, much like how a grandiose work has value itself, not just the value we attribute upon it. With instrumental value being that is provides a use, or that it is a means to get something done; non-instrumental value is the lack of that. Broken down, Singer’s analogy argument entails that it is the species themselves which are to hold value and if you were to make the entirety of a species go extinct then there would a something fundamentally wrong with that; he calls it an “act of vandalism”(62), much like how there would be something fundamentally wrong with destroying the Mona Lisa. This analogy argument rests upon the principles that paintings, and more importantly, species have more to offer rather than just their instrumental value and use towards humans. Thus, there must be the thought that all together, the individuals which make up a species, constitutes the species as a whole having a level of intrinsic value, since the species offers more than just their instrumental value to humans. Where intrinsic value means that something holds value in itself, without the need for someone to impart their own subjective value onto it.

However, Singer utilizes a provoking thought experiment to argue against the analogy argument. He argues against the analogy through arguing against the premise of art really having intrinsic value of itself. He uses the example that if an individual were to be the very last individual on earth, and not including the benefits the artwork may supply, should there be anything inherently wrong in building a fire with it-or with setting ablaze the Louvre? This is used to argue against the case as it basically entails that since there is only the opinion of oneself left to judge whether or not something holds value, then there would overwhelmingly be little to prove the opinion wrong otherwise.  The thought experiment that Singer uses questions not only the reasoning behind the analogy itself, but it also questions all facets proposed within the analogy argument. This analogy rests upon the idea that there must be intrinsic value held by artwork when there is no one left to see or appreciate it, but if only one person is left and their opinion becomes rule, there then becomes no way to prove otherwise that artwork holds any other subjective value apart from that. Moreover, if this is the case, then this analogy cannot be used to support the argument that artwork has any intrinsic value as there would be no way of proving it to be true. Therein lies the basis of the objection which Singer poses towards the analogy argument. However, Singer does make a final point stating that if one held the view directly opposing his own, then there could be the supposition that if art held intrinsic value, he could see how species could hold it as well.

Singer’s objection to the analogy can be seen as an argument against what the analogy is built on-that if artwork holds a non-instrumental value, aside from benefits to humans, that can be seen as comparable to species holding a non-instrumental value as well. However, Singer’s argument against the analogy argument can still have objections faced with it. One objection is that his premise does not support the conclusion he makes within his argument. Thus, he cannot guarantee that just because artwork has not been seen or revered by a large percentage of the population does not mean that it does not hold intrinsic value. Intrinsic value itself means that it holds importance despite, and notwithstanding, individual belief in it. So if Singer was the only one left on the planet-who is to say that, even if, he had a personal vendetta against the works within the Louvre, Singer would still be okay with torching the building down. The existence of one sole person does not automatically make their actions correct; just because there is no one there to place judgement on them, that does not mean their actions are free from being unethical. It can then be deduced that it would not be ethical to destroy the building-regardless of whether or not Singer valued the Louvre, as to do so would be morally impermissible. Moreover, when Singer claims that, “how can it be shown that the Pietà has value independently of the appreciation of those who have seen or will see it?”(63) he is concerning himself with unnecessary affairs because his personal values do not determine whether or the Pietà, for example, has intrinsic value. Through Singer asking what does and does not qualify as having value-independent of belief in it, he is pushing his own values of what does and does not constitute as intrinsic, upon his argument. Just as the existence of undeniable moral truths can exist, so can the existence of intrinsic value of art and species are able to be extended to this as well.

With this objection in mind, Singer would respond as being against this argument, as long as it benefitted the greatest number of beings. As a utilitarian, Singer would engage with this objection as being in opposition to it and the premise that would follow, as species having intrinsic value as well. This is due to the principles of utilitarianism which he adheres to. If going off of the concept that utilitarianism is to commit actions which would cause pleasure to the greatest number of sentient beings and that even if there was only one human left in the world and what they derived pleasure of was destroying art, despite the intrinsic value it held, then they ought to destroy it-irregardless of the value it held. Likewise, if Singer was wanting to minimize the most amount of suffering, it would still follow that they should destroy the artwork; as to do so would be to inflict undue suffering by going against the wishes of Singer. Due to the premise of the objection, that artwork can have intrinsic value despite an individual's belief in it, the last individual in the work may love destroying that which holds intrinsic value, it would still follow they should destroy it. This aligns with utilitarianism and ultimately, Singer’s beliefs, because it would cause suffering upon the last person on earth to not follow their wishes. It may also come into play that to not destroy that which holds intrinsic value, like art, causes suffering itself. Thus, if it can be seen that Singer would want to maximize the will of the person willing it to be done, in order to maximize their happiness and minimize their suffering then it can be followed that despite art having intrinsic value, that it does not matter. Singer’s response to the objection raised to his analogy argument can be seen as following the basic principles of utilitarianism, which Singer would adhere to. It would be consistent with his viewpoint that naturally he would support the destruction of valued art, (which, for the purpose of this argument can be understood as having intrinsic value) that it is only natural to see this follow to species as well; although that is not the primary part his response engages with, only what would follow naturally as a result.

Share this learning activity with others