The moral of P. Singer is "off" (consequentialism)

Peter Singer is a well known  professor of Ethics in Princeton, in the field of Bioethics. Also he is active in the defence of life of animals. As an Ethics teacher, professor Singer supports  the consequencialist  approach, an utilitarian point of view which today  has many followers.

This approach basically states that unless some action has unwanted (away from the actor's intention) "consequences", derived from the performance of a decision, that action is basically good. According to this orientation, the subject has to "calculate"  therefore the probability of occurrence of certain consequences. 

Of course, many scholars, political practicionairs and ordinary individuals follow this trend today. For one obvious reason: it is almost impossible to track forward down the potential steps of any action till the last consequences.

With this approach, the burden of morals on the back of any innocent actor  is decreased considerably. No doubt that might be one of the reasons why Singer is applauded and invited to preside meetings and conferences all over the world. No set of absolute values can be fixed against which behavior can be  measured. 

However,  a further question remains: Is it true that by following the consequences of an action would  a person learn about the morality of his act? Does not the intervention of conscience with a prompt judgement about the goodness or badness play a role in this process of determinig the morality of any act? Can freedom be separated from truth and goodness?

The morality of acts is defined by "the relationship between the freeedom of man with the authentic good", according to saint John Paul II (Veritatis splendor, n 71), that is to say, according to the will of God and  the dignity of a human person.

And this is the point. Truth is an esential part of morals. 

This is why it is not up to anyone to equate moral acts according to the "intentions" of the doer, circumstances, the roars of public opinion, or the perceived utility of the action involved (proportionalism). 

We are living today in an exceptional time of relativism (the suppression of truth), in all realms of life. Since we do not have to search painstakingly any more to find out the nature of what something is, anybody feels entitled to raise his voice and proclaim his views all over the media. The moral order set by God is a nuissance.

But in order to challenge these views reigning today's world,  you need to have real power so access to the media can be granted. Otherwise your point of view is very likeky to be condemned to remain as a private concern.

That is why,  morals are nowadays more and more associated with power than with truth. So the more power you have, the more likely it is that your opinions will be aired, regardless their truth. It seems that by repeating a falsehod may become truth.

Pope Francis relates in his recent Encyclical letter Laudato si, his concern for the life of animals and the near future of mankind since the abuses of the most highly developed countries is non stop ---a concern also shared by P. Singer. But the Pope's  concern is not calculated on the bases of  the "consequences" of  any actions. 

Rather, Pope Francis'  analysis is based on the dignity of any creature, since all of them  have the unique character of being created by God. Furthermore, all these creatures  share  a common house, forming a harmonic system, or ecology, that we all must respect.

That is to say, the ecological equilibrium depends on principles known and kept by man, rather than on consequences. For that reason, a utilitarian view of today's resources will end up having rather negative consequences for each one of those 
interrelated parts in that system.

It is truth that makes man free; not the other way around (regardless the consequences), although it seems paradoxical.