click here to jump to start of article
  • Torah Reading: Naso
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​

Can Intellect Replace Morality?

Can Intellect Replace Morality?

Intelligence is no guarantee of goodness.


Peter Singer has written a new book. The prominent Australian philosopher, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, argues in The Life You Can Save that residents of the affluent West have it within their power to eradicate extreme Third World poverty and its attendant suffering. By donating money to charity instead of spending it on things we don't really need, he writes, everyone can save lives -- and when you fail to do so, he suggests, "you are leaving a child to die, a child you could have saved."

Singer told the Wall Street Journal last week that he tries to practice what he preaches by giving one-third of his income to "Oxfam and other organizations working in the field." Few of us can give away that much of our earnings, but Singer urges most people to donate between 1 percent and 5 percent of what they make to help the destitute, with those who earn more digging even deeper.

You don't have to be a disciple of Singer's philosophy to admire his commitment to charity, especially when you consider the tightfistedness of some of our leading public figures. I salute Singer's generosity, and sincerely hope that his new book prompts many readers to do more for the needy than they have ever thought about doing before.

And yet I can't help wondering which will ultimately prove more influential -- Singer's efforts to save lives through charity, or the role he has played as an intellectual enabler for the modern culture of death.

In 2005, Foreign Policy marked its 35th anniversary by asking several thinkers to speculate on what ideas or values taken for granted today will vanish in the next 35 years. "The sanctity of life," answered Singer, looking forward to the day when "only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct." A year earlier, pronouncing "the whole edifice of Judeo-Christian morality . . . terminally ill," Singer had elaborated on his notorious view that it ought to be lawful to kill severely disabled infants. "All I am saying," he told The Independent, "is, why limit the killing to the womb? Nothing magical happens at birth. Of course infanticide needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare -- but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion."

Reason, education, and intellectual quickness are to be prized, but they are no substitute for good character, kindness, and ethical values.

Perhaps it seems odd that the same individual can be a champion of both saving life through philanthropy and ending life through legalized infanticide. Yet if morality is merely a matter of opinion and preference -- if there is no overarching ethical code that supersedes any value system we can contrive for ourselves -- then why not value the lives of the impoverished above the lives of the disabled? Singer accepts that some of what he says "seems obscene and evil if you are still looking at it through the prism of the old morality." But give up that "old morality," and the objections are easily resolved.

In his Wall Street Journal interview, Singer spoke of dilemmas that may arise in the future when parents are able to select the genetic traits of their offspring. "I would not oppose selecting for intelligence," he says. "We could assume that people of higher intelligence would have good consequences for society."

Could we, though? Does higher intelligence always, or even usually, lead to "good consequences?" Like strength or agility or attractiveness, intelligence is only a gift, not a guarantee -- an asset that can as readily be used to harm others as to help them. Singer's faith in intelligence is consistent with his own life's work, but highly intelligent people are perfectly capable of monstrousness. Reason, education, and intellectual quickness are to be prized, but they are no substitute for good character, kindness, and ethical values. In the 20th century, after all, it was learned intellectuals who signed newspaper ads supporting Stalin, and men with PhDs who planned Hitler's Final Solution.

Intelligence alone will not make the world a better place, and if anyone's career proves the point, it is Singer's. Over the years, he has turned his skill to rationalizing bestiality, proposing a 28-day period during which newborns could be killed, and concluding that breeding children for spare parts is "not . . . something really wrong in itself." And why not? Once you've jettisoned the "old morality," good and evil become just a matter of opinion. "Man without God is a beast," wrote Whittaker Chambers, "never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness."

This article originally appeared in the Boston Globe.

March 7, 2009

Give Tzedakah! Help create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 7

(7) eli, July 6, 2009 7:20 PM

Whats Next?

Maybe Mr. Singers next "intellegent" idea will be to eradicate all non-contributing countries and groups,if your not held back by morals then we should do Everything we can for the good of mankind.

(6) Célio, May 26, 2009 7:36 PM

Obedience to Torah.

It has a Jewish proverb that says: "How waters deep are the purposes of the human heart, but the man of intelligence knows discover them. Many proclaim their own kindness, but the man fair whom can the find? The man fair gait in its integrity, happy are the sons after him.”. I have learned in other texts here at Aish, we do not need to "Code of Ethics" to manipulate the character and intelligence of man. Nothing. Only the man need to fear the Eternal. Its integrity depends only in this Fear of the Eternal. How? First you must love Adonai on all things, and secondly be obedient to Torah. And nothing else.

(5) GS, March 11, 2009 10:15 PM

What qualifies him to decide

Wow. I don't even know where to start. A man without faith, like Mr. Singer, and sadly, a growing number of others, can not begin to understand why these things he condones are wrong. Faith is in part the acknowledgement of the limitations of our senses, and the recognition that a tremendous number of truths exist that we cannot see, hear, touch, etc. Well - all those abhorrent things he accepts might be ok if this life was all there was. But we with faith know that there is more than just this physical life. And that we answer eventually for what we do and don't do. He may go blithely along in his time on earth reveling in his so called intelligence, promoting infanticide and whatever else, but there are consequences to everything at some point. And by the way - how does he decide how "severely disabled" an infant has to be to kill it? What qualifies him to make that choice? Since he values intelligence so much, then do those born with Down's need fear him, or just Cerebral Palsy? or maybe just the baby who goes through a difficult birth and might be disabled? There is no one here who can make those kinds of decisions. That is for G-d only. We are not qualified, none of us.

(4) Anonymous, March 11, 2009 8:31 AM

a practical man who is not bound by Torah

Even though no guarantees and it is possible to be an evil genius it is for certain appealing to choose intelligance and attractiveness if given the option. As medical science advances the challenge to decide issues such as these and others in article will be more frequent and unless the public accepts Torah law in these mattters Singer's solutions seem to me to be the way things are headed. Given economic realities and the choices available if not bound by the yoke of Tora Singer's proposals make sense to me as well.

(3) ruth housman, March 11, 2009 5:24 AM

the singer, and ... the song

I never expected this, after you had explained this man's view of charity. I totally agree with the point of view of this article and there is something quite chilling to me about Singer's views. If we ever reach such a brave new world, I don't want to be part of this. Making judgments about what is important in a person, in this way, and what we should value, is just so totally wrong. In my life I have learned that all people are beautiful and that the value in living, has more to do with how we are with each other, than the "intellect" and what we call external trappings of this thing we are taught to see as "beauty". What is important in life is this wonderful diversity of beings and to play God in this way, leaves me cold. Yes, this is a story of beauty and the beast. I think the beast has so much to do with throwing out old, deep, values which came into existence for reasons that are about another kind of truth and beauty. Yes, I do believe in a morality of weighting of ethical decisions, but to make such across the board decisions, leaves me chilled and very upset there could be such views. It does all echo the notion of Final Solution and I find this abhorrent.

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment