peter singer’s ethics is individualist, like rawls, a critique of liberal democracy that seeks to reform it. however, he doesn’t. his ethics, sense of morality, seems to insist the individual is the problem, not the system itself.
perhaps this is a problem with utilitarianism. i always find myself having to insist that individual ethics (universal or not) means nothing should we be socially organized by a power (in this case, the capitalist free market is a social organizing force) that makes our shared morality pointless. for example, capitalism depends on artificial scarcities that impoverish people and depends on class hierarchies that impoverish the majority while offering unearned ambition to a minority.
you read these singer essays on ethics and they often read well. you want to like them. as soon as you recognize the political in them, they become problematic.