1) Singer argues that the idea of ‘equality of opportunity’ does not make much sense--what, according to Singer, is wrong with the notion?

According to Singer, the idea of ‘equality of opportunity’ doesn’t really make sense. To understand this, he gives a brief example of two individuals, Jack and Jill, who earn incredibly different salaries. In most Western societies this is seen as fair, but why? The answer to this question relies on the widespread belief that as long as the individuals involved had equal opportunity to achieve the higher paying job then pay discrimination is fair. The problem comes in when this situation is looked at with more scrutiny. Perhaps one received inferior education or had a troublesome family life or even was born with “unsmart“ genes. The first might be easier to correct but the other two most certainly are not. The point is that equality of opportunity “rewards the lucky, who inherit those abilities that allow them to pursue interesting and lucrative careers, [and] it penalizes the unlucky, whose genes make it very hard for them to achieve similar success.” The entire notion of equality of opportunity doesn’t make sense because there are no equal starting points.

In fitting with Singer’s utilitarian beliefs, he says that affirmative action maximizes welfare. He explains that because disadvantaged minorities are often poorly served by those in higher professions (e.g. doctors, lawyers), it is important for minorities to be educated in these fields. Singer believes that these successful minorities will be more likely to work in communities whose ethnic makeup is predominately the same as their own thus eliminating this problem. Singer also believes that these successful minorities will serve as role models and mentors for others in their group, increasing the likelihood that other minorities will be more likely to succeed. Lastly, he believes that the presence of ethic minorities in predominately white professions will help to eliminate prejudice as well as educate others so that they can serve a more diverse population.

3) What would Narveson have to say about an employer who only ever hires whites? Explain your answer.

Narveson, being the self-interested contractualist that he is, would explain that there is nothing wrong with this employer’s practice. He would explain that a job is a benefit not a right, and that any good, self-interested business person will hire those who are best for the job. Because of this view, Narveson would say that obviously whites were the best qualified for this job otherwise the employer would have hired those of other ethnicities.

4) Singer thinks that we should not be speciesist--does this mean that we must give horses the right to vote? Explain your answer.

Singer’s belief does not require that we give horses the right to vote. All that utilitarianism says is that the interests of all beings must be weighed equally. After weighing these interests, it may be found that one being is treated one way while another is treated in a completely different manner. The horse is not given the right to vote because after any amount of consideration it would seem obvious that horses lack the mental capacity and political knowledge necessary to make a good electoral decision.

5) Singer presents various arguments for the claim that killing persons is worse than killing non-persons. Is the view that it is worse to kill persons consistent with Singer’s principle of equal consideration of interests? Explain your answer.

Singer’s idea of equal consideration of interests does not require that all beings are treated the same; it simply requires that the interests of all beings are weighed equally. Once this is done, one being might be treated differently than another. In looking at the case of killing persons versus killing non-persons, it would not be inconsistent of Singer to say that it is worse to kill persons as opposed to killing non-persons. To fully understand this, it must be understood why killing persons is bad. In Singer’s view, the more rational and self-conscious a creature is, the worse it is to kill it. Persons are rational and self-conscious beings who have desires and plans for the future; therefore, it would be more contrary to a person’s interests to kill them than it would be to a non-person’s interests.