Assessing Peter Singer's argument for utilitarianism :drawing a lesson from Rousseau and Kant

In Practical Ethics, Peter Singer argues that utilitarianism is a first step that we must take, if we are to think morally and that moving away from utilitarianism requires justification. This is a strong claim. In effect, it is to claim that utilitarianism is the default setting for moral thinking and that the onus of proof falls on anyone who resists utilitarianism.<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10790-011-9279-8#Fn1&qu... id="x-x-x-x-Fn1_source">1 The argument has a starting-point in self-interest and is flawed for that reason. This flaw is comparable to a problem in the argument Rousseau advances for a social contract. Kant offers a solution to the problem that shows the kind of adjustment needed to improve Singer’s argument. The problem Singer faces stems from an assumption of self-interest typical of evolutionary naturalism, even though when he turns to consider evolutionary theory and its significance, he rejects the assumption.