Breakfast with Peter Singer: Reflections on Ethics, AI, and Moral Responsibility
- Ow Yeong Wai Kit
- Mar 29
- 6 min read
Updated: Mar 31
Over breakfast (of prata and fruit) with philosopher Peter Singer this morning, I had the privilege of engaging in a wide-ranging and deeply thought-provoking conversation. Prof. Singer, globally renowned as a pioneer of the animal rights movement, is as down-to-earth as he is insightful—genuine, incisive, and profoundly thoughtful. Our discussion touched on some of the most pressing ethical challenges of our time, from animal rights to artificial intelligence, and (closer to home) the ethics of transporting migrant workers.
Given Prof. Singer’s seminal work, Animal Liberation (1975), we also discussed how his ethical principles apply to contemporary practices. One example was the ritual of “mercy release”, practised by some (ostensibly) Buddhist groups, in which animals are freed into the wild as an act of compassion. While well-intentioned, this practice often leads to environmental harm, as Prof. pointed out—many animals die soon after release, and non-native species can disrupt ecosystems. True animal liberation involves addressing systemic causes of suffering, such as factory farming, rather than isolated acts that may do more harm than good—compassionate intentions must be coupled with wisdom and responsibility.
Our conversation later turned to a fascinating historical parallel that Prof. Singer highlights in Animal Liberation Now (2023). As he recounts in his book, Mary Wollstonecraft’s groundbreaking work Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), was met with ridicule when it was first published. A distinguished Cambridge philosopher at the time tried to undermine Wollstonecraft’s argument for women’s equality by suggesting that if the reasoning for equality applied to women, it could just as easily be extended to animals like dogs, cats, and horses. He dismissed this idea as self-evidently ludicrous, arguing that it was self-evident that animals could not have rights. Therefore, by his logic, the argument for women’s equality must also be flawed.
The irony of this reasoning is clear—what was intended as a reductio ad absurdum argument has, in fact, become a serious ethical consideration. Today, while we have made significant strides in recognising gender equality, we also see growing recognition of animal rights, such as laws against cruelty and exploitation. What was once dismissed as laughable—the idea that animals deserve moral consideration—is now widely accepted.
This brought our conversation to a contemporary question: with the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, could similar arguments apply to AI? I asked Prof. Singer: based on this logic, shouldn’t moral consideration also be extended to AI if it exhibits sentience? Prof.’s response was thought-provoking. He explained that if AI were to develop genuine consciousness—not merely imitating it—it would indeed warrant moral consideration and rights. He emphasised that sentience, or the capacity to experience suffering and pleasure, is the key factor. If AI systems eventually demonstrate true sentience, we would have a moral obligation to treat them accordingly, just as we do with sentient animals.
This possibility raises profound questions about the future of ethics. How would we recognise true consciousness in AI? What responsibilities would we have toward such entities? And how might our understanding of moral consideration evolve further? The boundaries of ethical reasoning are never fixed—they expand as we deepen our understanding of the world and the beings within it.
Later, after our breakfast and during the car ride back (thanks to Bro. Jono!), I thought of putting AI to the test. Because I just learnt from Prof. about an AI chatbot modelled after him (freely accessible online at https://www.petersinger.ai), I decided to ask the chatbot the same question posed to Prof. (“What is wisdom?”), compare its response with his actual reply, and share it with him on the spot!
Interestingly, the chatbot’s response was strikingly similar to Prof.’s. The chatbot said that wisdom is “the ability to make sound judgments and decisions based on knowledge, experience, and understanding”. Prof.’s answer echoed this sentiment closely. He explained that wisdom isn’t just about knowing the right thing but also about doing the right thing, with an awareness of the broader implications of one’s actions. When I pointed out the similarity, Prof. chuckled and remarked that the chatbot is actually quite accurate—it really does reflect what he would say in most situations. He added that the chatbot tends to err on the side of caution, which, in his view, is probably a good thing. It was fascinating to see how closely technology could replicate his philosophical insights, though as Prof. himself would remind us, true wisdom lies not only in articulating thoughtful ideas but also in applying them to make meaningful, ethical choices in the real world.
Speaking of the real world, we also discussed Singapore’s policy of transporting migrant workers via lorries. Every day in Singapore, over 400,000 workers are ferried this way, leading to injuries and fatalities. In 2024 alone, there were 409 injuries and 5 deaths reported. The government’s position is that banning lorry transport would hurt small businesses, leading to job losses, rising costs, and delays in critical projects. I asked Prof. Singer: from a utilitarian perspective, can the interests of the majority (i.e. citizens’ genuine business concerns about economic disruptions) ever supersede the rights of the minority (i.e. migrant workers’ rights to wear seatbelts and not be treated as cargo)? Prof. Singer’s response was clear: when the costs to the minority are so high—involving very real risks of injury and death—it is the moral obligation of the majority to alleviate suffering, even at the cost of some inconvenience to themselves.
I drew a parallel to his famous “drowning child” analogy: most people would agree it’s morally obligatory to save a drowning child, even at the cost of muddying their clothes or being late. Also I was reminded of the moral dilemma in Ursula K. Le Guin's short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, set in a utopian city called Omelas in which the happiness of its citizens relies on the concealed misery of a single child.
Granted, as Prof. himself pointed out, Omelas isn’t a perfect metaphor for lorry transport, because a worker would still be economically better off by coming to work in Singapore than if he had stayed in his home country. If a ban on lorry transport is imposed, and if the worker loses his job in Singapore, he might turn out to be worse off economically, as he may not find equivalent job opportunities or wages elsewhere. But this raises a deeper ethical question: should economic betterment come at the cost of safety and dignity? How can we, as a society, explore solutions to ensure that workers are not obliged to make such a trade-off?
Prof. Singer acknowledged the complexity of balancing economic considerations with moral obligations, but he also stressed that Singapore’s affluence brings with it a greater moral responsibility. Just because someone is better off than they would be elsewhere doesn’t mean we are absolved of the ethical responsibility to protect their well-being.
Can we explore subsidies for safer transportation options or implement phased regulations to allow businesses time to adapt? It’s easy to get caught up in the numbers—costs, profits, and percentages—but ethics requires us to look at the faces behind those accident statistics and ask ourselves if we’re truly doing enough to protect the very people who are building our city. We need this kind of ethical awareness for the good of our society and our future generations.
I’m reminded of how I asked Prof. during our conversation: if there was one change you could make to the education system, what would it be? Prof. said it would be for students to become independent thinkers—individuals who question assumptions, challenge the status quo, and critically evaluate ideas rather than passively accepting them. Fostering independent thinking is especially crucial in a world facing pressing global challenges, from climate change to inequality to animal welfare. This position resonated deeply with me—it’s a reminder of the transformative power of education and the responsibility we have as educators, policymakers, and learners to prioritise ethical reasoning in shaping the future.
Thank you to Prof. Singer for his time, and to Bro. Jono for arranging this insightful meeting, as well as Dr Leo for joining us—it was a most thought-provoking morning!
Comentarios