Ethics: Peter Singer is a controversialist. Professor of bioethics at Princeton University, his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, became a bible for the animal rights movement.
Since then his writings on euthanasia (pro), charity (he advocates "giving till it hurts"), politics (he argues from a "Darwinian left" perspective), and philosophy have made him a figure of hate for many, but of immense respect for others. He is daringly consistent in following arguments through to their logical end, and seeks rationality of thought above all else, often reaching unexpected and thought-provoking conclusions.
His new book is similarly contentious. Even the subject matter, "Bush's ethics", appears unlikely. Singer was unperturbed when colleagues told him that the phrase was an oxymoron; or else that this would be a very short book indeed. Readers expecting another great polemical rant in the style of Michael Moore or Al Franken may be disappointed to read that Singer is determined to take Bush's ethic seriously, as tens of millions of Americans do. He has assumed from the outset that Bush is sincere, and seeks to assess his ethic on its own terms.
In his moral certainties, Singer writes, Bush sees everything in black and white - evil for him has an objective existence, and he speaks regularly in terms of "good and evil". This language, like much of the religious phraseology he uses regularly, sounds inappropriate to many Europeans. But Bush has always drawn extensively on his Christian faith in public utterances; and the US, unlike most of Europe, is a highly religious society. Consider that 94 per cent of Americans believe in God; 72 per cent in hell and the devil. When Bush speaks of his heart being "committed to Jesus", he is speaking to and for them.
A key strength of Singer's book is that he does not mock this faith. Rather, he seeks to examine Bush's words and deeds dispassionately to see if they match the president's own standards, concluding that in many respects Bush's decisions do not conform to his own belief-system. His propensity to go to war offends the "turn the other cheek" principle central to Christianity. His frequent assertions that all life must be respected, his opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion, are all inconsistent with his gleeful support for the death penalty (he signed 152 death warrants as governor of Texas, a record even in the US) and the lack of value he places on the lives of Iraqi civilians in the ongoing war of occupation.
If Bush's ethic, when measured against his actions, cannot be described as consistently Christian, does any other broad ethical framework underpin his policies? Singer concludes not. In some respects, Bush has appeared to endorse an ideology of libertarianism. Yet his opposition to "big government" is inconsistent with his support for a federal ban on gay marriage and his extensive curtailment of civil liberties under the Patriot Act.
On foreign policy, again a clear ethic is lacking. Bush has generally pursued a unilateralist agenda, refusing to sign international treaties on the environment (Kyoto) and on criminal justice (the International Criminal Court). But he has also developed two unique doctrines to justify US interventionism. The first, the basis for his war on Afghanistan, sees "states which support terrorism" as legitimate targets. Second, his "pre-emptive strike" doctrine was used to justify the US invasion of Iraq. Both principles are consistent only with "Pax Americana", the idea advocated by Bush's advisers in the Project for a New American Century, which sees the US as the sole global superpower, the UN sidelined.
In the absence of an international legal framework, however, there would be no external checks and balances on the tyrannical exercise of US power. This is an outcome desired by the shadowy figures advising Bush on foreign policy. Is the president, then, a dupe or puppet for the ethic and ambition of others? Or is he a clever fake, an unethical actor pretending to believe his own grandiose claims of moral certainty? Singer leaves these questions unanswered, suggesting that even if Bush genuinely believes in his own rhetoric, it lacks any coherent basis. Essentially, he governs by instinct, without any ability for reflection or critical thought; as Singer concludes, at best a woefully inadequate ethic for the president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
This restrained and thoughtful conclusion is typical of the book, a much more considered and less strident read than you might expect from the title. Singer's conclusions are all the more persuasive for that - at times disturbingly so. Highly recommended reading for anyone capable of critical thought.
• Ivana Bacik, barrister and Reid Professor of Criminal Law at Trinity College Dublin, is a Labour Party candidate for Dublin in June's European elections. Her new book, Kicking and Screaming, is published this month