Well, despite those troubling stances, he is probably more known for his animal rights activism - particularly that of great apes. He has written extensively about affording legal rights to chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans and is part of a group called the Great Ape Project (GAP).
This group recently achieved a major advancement in Spain, where:
"Members of parliament's environmental committee urged the government to comply with the "Great Apes Project", backed by scientists and philosophers who argue man's closest genetic relatives deserve such accords."The law is likely to pass, giving our closest genetic relatives basic human rights - meaning they can't be used in experiments or be killed.
How genetically close to humans are they? According to GAP Board Member, Dr. Pedro A. Ynterian,
"Between the two of us we could even have a 0.5% difference in our DNA. The difference between a Chimpanzee and us is only 1.23%. Human blood and Chimpanzee blood, with compatible blood groups, can be exchanged through transfusion. Neither our nor the chimps blood can be exchanged with any other species.Which is all well and good, but how is it that Peter Singer is so concerned with the life of a non-human (but genetically close to human) and simultaneously show such unconcern with 100% genetically actual humans - infants. He is part of a group that has lobbied for 14 years to get world governments to recognize the right to life of chimpanzees, while at the same time advocating the permissability of killing a 2 day, 2 month, even 2 year old child.
We are closer genetically to a chimp than a mouse is to a rat."
All because of his stout defense of what makes a person a person.
Here's hoping someday I don't fall out of this ethics professor's definition.