Meaning: This quote by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer encapsulates the essence of utilitarianism, a moral and ethical theory that focuses on the consequences of actions. Singer is a prominent figure in the field of ethics and is known for his work on animal rights, global poverty, and effective altruism. In this quote, he discusses the abstract nature of moral decision-making and the consideration of consequences in ethical reasoning.

Utilitarianism, as a philosophical approach, posits that the morality of an action is determined by its ability to produce the greatest amount of good or happiness for the greatest number of people. This ethical framework prioritizes the consequences of actions over the intentions behind them. According to utilitarianism, an action is considered morally right if its consequences result in the greatest overall benefit for the affected individuals, regardless of the individual's personal interests or desires.

Singer's reference to "abstract ones" in the quote suggests that utilitarian moral decisions often deal with broad and general principles rather than specific, concrete rules. This aligns with the foundational idea of utilitarianism, which emphasizes the evaluation of actions based on their potential outcomes and impacts on the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. In essence, utilitarianism encourages individuals to consider the broader implications of their choices and to prioritize the greater good when making moral decisions.

The phrase "doing what will have the best consequences" reflects the consequentialist nature of utilitarian ethics. According to utilitarianism, the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the overall consequences it produces. This entails assessing the potential outcomes of an action and choosing the course of action that maximizes positive consequences while minimizing negative ones. The emphasis on consequences underscores the forward-looking and outcome-oriented nature of utilitarian moral reasoning.

Singer's assertion that "obviously you wouldn't specify what consequences are best" acknowledges the complexity inherent in evaluating the best outcomes of an action. Utilitarianism recognizes that the determination of the "best" consequences can be subjective and context-dependent. What constitutes the best consequences may vary based on the specific circumstances, cultural norms, and individual perspectives. Therefore, utilitarian ethical deliberation often involves a degree of uncertainty and subjectivity when assessing the potential outcomes of actions.

Moreover, Singer's mention of potential differences at a "lower, more specific level" highlights the nuanced application of utilitarian principles in ethical decision-making. While utilitarianism provides a general framework for evaluating actions based on their consequences, the specific implementation of this framework may vary depending on the particular details of a situation. This recognition of contextual nuances underscores the flexibility of utilitarianism in addressing diverse moral dilemmas and real-world scenarios.

In conclusion, Peter Singer's quote encapsulates the core principles of utilitarianism, emphasizing the significance of considering consequences in moral decision-making. Utilitarianism's focus on the broader implications of actions, the prioritization of the greater good, and the recognition of contextual nuances align with the themes articulated in the quote. Singer's contributions to ethics and his advocacy for utilitarian principles have had a profound impact on philosophical discourse and ethical reasoning, making his insights valuable in understanding the complexities of moral decision-making.