This reads a little like an exercise in devil's advocacy -- I never imagined Singer would genuinely defend any form of objectivism.



On the one hand, Singer notes that "people disagree deeply about right and wrong"; on the other hand he concludes, "What we gain from Parfit’s work is the possibility of defending these and other moral claims as objective truths." It seems more than a little contradictory.



Perhaps Parfit did find some common ground between consequentialism and social-contract theories. But that doesn't imply consequentialism is objective, in any sense of the word.