Famine, Affluence, and Morality - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 34
About This Presentation
Title:

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Description:

... without sacrificing anything morally significant then we ... He thinks that what people believe about morality is independent from what is morally right. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:579
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: NicoleH9
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Famine, Affluence, and Morality


1
Famine, Affluence, and Morality
  • Peter Singer

2
The Problem of Famine
  • People and governments are not doing what is
    necessary to prevent hunger. They value other
    things more than lives. This means developing
    countries have to make choices between starvation
    now or slowing development, which means
    starvation in the future. People are aware of
    hunger the problem is in peoples moral schema,
    we need to change our moral framework.

3
Singer Argues
  • 1. Suffering and death from lack of food and
    shelter and medicine are bad.
  • 2. If we can do something to help prevent
    suffering and death from lack of food and shelter
    and medicine without sacrificing anything of
    morally comparable worth then we should help (Or
    If we can do something to help prevent suffering
    and death from lack of food and shelter and
    medicine without sacrificing anything morally
    significant then we should help).

4
  • 3. We can do something to help without
    sacrificing anything of morally comparable worth
    (or significant)
  • 4. We should help.

5
Consideration of the Premises
  • He does not argue for 1.
  • To support 2. he gives the drowning child
    analogy, we have to help - muddy clothes do not
    justify allowing death because they are not
    morally comparable.

6
Changing Our Moral Framework
  • But if we accept this premise (in either form)
    this will be a major change in our moral
    framework.
  • There are two reasons for this 1. the principle
    doesnt take account of moral distance (whether
    you are near or know the victims) and 2. it does
    not distinguish between cases where there are
    many persons that could help or only one.

7
Against the Distance Principle
  • Here he asks for a justification of the distance
    principle.
  • He notes that closeness makes it more likely we
    will help but doesnt show that we ought to help
    more.

8
  • He also notes that if we are closer we are in a
    better epistemic position as far as judging what
    we can do and if we can really help at all, but
    there is pretty good communication and
    transportation so now days the world is like a
    global village. There are expert observers and
    organizations to send aid.

9
That Others Could Help Doesnt Matter
  • Likewise, he thinks there is no reason why we
    have less duty to help when others can help as
    well. There is a psychological difference but
    not a moral one. Its not like one is less
    obliged to pull the kid out of the lake if others
    are there and doing nothing.

10
Possible Objections and Responses
  • If all gave x then disaster could be adverted,
    there is no reason why I should give more than
    others, so I should give x.
  • The argument doesnt matter if everyone isnt
    going to give x. In such cases giving more than
    x will prevent more suffering so you should give
    more than x. It seems that people should give as
    much as possible (since not everyone will give).

11
  • But, If everyone does this there will be too much
    money so their sacrifices will not be useful and
    the result will be worse than if only some had
    contributed.
  • Response The paradox only arises if the
    contribution is simultaneous those giving later
    will not be obligated to give as much.

12
  • But wont this be unfair to those giving first?
  • Response Unfairness is better than death

13
Conclusions?
  • So neither distance not the number of
    contributors can change our moral obligations.
    This means that the distinction between duty and
    charity cant work. Because giving is considered
    charity people dont think they have a duty to
    give.

14
  • Has Singer shown that we need some other
    justification for not giving? Do we need to
    change our behavior and ameliorate poverty.

15
First Possible Objection
  • This is too drastic people do not think being
    moral requires so much.

16
Response
  • How they judge is not what is at issue, and we
    can explain why they judge this way.
  • Someone could just deny this but should offer an
    argument here.

17
Second Objection
  • One might say that imperatives of duty are just
    there to guide our living together. Things that
    do not help us live together are merely
    charitable.

18
Response
  • But, this is just an explanation not a
    justification. He thinks the moral point of view
    should look beyond particular societies and that
    we can do this now in a way we couldnt have done
    before.

19
First Objection Revised
  • If we tried to implement this code morality would
    break down.

20
Response
  • This is absurd it is like saying that if we
    tell people not to kill and to help relieve
    famines they will do neither whereas if we just
    tell them not to kill (and perhaps add that it is
    nice to help relieve famines) they will not kill.
    If this is accepted one would need to figure out
    where to draw the line between what to say is
    good and what to say is required in order to get
    the best possible results.

21
  • This would be difficult, and it ignores the fact
    that what people do, and even what its possible
    for people to do, is influenced by societys
    standards. Finally, even if this is true for
    most people, Singer would say that individuals
    that can meet a higher standard should hold
    themselves to a higher standard.

22
Third Objection
  • It would follow from Singers arguments that we
    ought to work full time to relieve misery.

23
Response
  • This is true in some circumstances (when there is
    a lot of poverty). Besides, it may work more as
    a criticism of our normal behavior than of the
    view (what we are doing is not sufficient).

24
Practical Concerns
  • Giving away money may not be the best way to end
    starvation governments should be responsible.

25
  • This assumes that private donations discourage
    governmental aid but he says it may be the
    opposite the government has no other way to
    know people care. They have to show that private
    donations do discourage governmental aid.
  • Of course he thinks governments should give too.
    Practice what we preach.

26
Obligations for Business?
  • What do you think Singer would say about the
    obligations of businesses?

27
  • Without population control we are prolonging (and
    maybe increasing) misery.

28
  • Perhaps we should provide population control or
    offer both at once.

29
  • Should we give to the level of marginal utility?
    Should one accept the strong version of the
    principle of preventing bad consequences?

30
  • Even if we accepted the moderate form consumer
    society based on trivial and non-essentials would
    disappear. He thinks this is good, but one might
    worry that slowing down the economy would limit
    the extent to which we could give aid.

31
  • He admits the possibility, but says we can do
    something about poverty now, and we should. And,
    we can (and should) research to see how we could
    be better at providing much more help in the
    future.

32
Summary
  • Singer believes that famine is bad, and that we
    can and ought to help relieve it when it is not
    too costly. He doesnt think distance or the
    number of possible contributors matters to
    morality nor does he think a strict moral
    requirement will break down our moral code. He
    thinks that what people believe about morality is
    independent from what is morally right.

33
Continued
  • If one accepts his view, it may require them to
    (personally) work full time to alleviate poverty,
    help control population size, figure out what the
    ideal amount of consumer growth is, and give up
    much of the affluence they currently have,
    (perhaps even to the point of marginal utility or
    beyond it). Alternately one could deny that the
    universality principle matters, or argue that the
    number of other possible contributors is
    important.

34
Questions for Consideration
  • Is Singer right if so why? If not why not?
    What would an intelligent opponent say in
    response? Create two valid arguments (one for
    and one against Singer).
  • How much of a duty do we have, should we go to
    the level of marginal utility? What do we have
    to take into account in deciding this?
  • Does distance matter? What is an argument
    against the distance principle? Does it matter
    if others are around to help? Why or why not?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com