Singer attacks consequentialist and non-consequentialist varieties of ethical egoism. He does not support consequentialist ethical egoism because he does not believe this ethical position "is valid as a means of satisfying the greatest total of preferences", which means Singer is ignorant about economics (he explicitly states that he doubts "that the facts are as ... defenders of the free market claim"). He opposes non-consequentialist ethical egoism because it "is potentially disastrous" and assumes "objective values".
Singer asserts there is a rational but non-objective basis for ethics. He claims that "the existence of ethics can be explained as the product of evolution among long-lived social animals with the capacity to reason" and, thus, "the need for belief in laws of ethics existing independently of us disappears." The LIBERTARIAN BIOETHICS BLOGger agrees with these statements.
Singer does not limit the applicability of ethics to reasoning animals. He expands the "circle of altruism" to include "all beings with the capacity to feel pleasure or pain". Thus, he implicitly argues that, if one of the relevant variants of panpsychism is correct, ethical rules should be extended to include treatment of non-animals. This is the portion of Singer's logic that fails miserably. Inexplicably he thinks reasoning organisms SHOULD apply rational ethics to non-reasoning organisms. Why? Libertarian bioethicists oppose the Singer principle. Libertarian bioethicists believe that reasoning organisms SHOULD apply rational ethics only to reasoning organisms. If a non-reasoning organism evolves to develop reason, then the libertarian bioethicist believes that rational ethics would then apply to that evolved reasoning organism. By reason the libertarian bioethicist means an organism with the minimum biological tools needed to be able to engage in propositional logic (truth-value claims), whether or not the organism is currently actively engaging in propositional logic.