Smith said, “We have villainized everybody and we are just barking at each other, instead of saying, ‘Okay, what about the solution?’” Having been kicked off a list of women supporting one of the biggest protests in national history, she would probably know. Her work, she says, is “about building bridges, not walls”—a line that echoes one of the Hillary Clinton campaign’s popular slogans from last fall. It’s also a goal that may serve the feminist movement as a whole, and the Democratic Party in particular. As the party continues to debate the details of its platform and the breadth of its membership, it’s clear that some pro-life feminists—and some pro-choice feminists too—are interested in having a conversation about how to move forward. Perhaps in bridging their differences, they can achieve goals dear to feminists on all sides.
However, when co-authoring The Point of View of the Universe (2014), Singer shifted to the position that objective moral values do exist, and defends the 19th Century utilitarian philosopher Henry Sidgwick's view that objective morality can be derived from fundamental moral axioms that are knowable by reason. Additionally, he endorses Derek Parfit's view that there are object-given reasons for action.  Furthermore, Singer and de Lazari-Radek (the co-author of the book) argue that evolutionary debunking arguments can be used to demonstrate that it is more rational to take the impartial standpoint of "the point of view of the universe", as opposed to egoism—pursuing one's own self-interest—because the existence of egoism is more likely to be the product of evolution by natural selection, rather than because it is correct, whereas taking an impartial standpoint and equally considering the interests of all sentient beings is in conflict with what we would expect from natural selection, meaning that it is more likely that impartiality in ethics is the correct stance to pursue.