11.07.07 Singer Famine Affluence Morality

11.07.07 Singer Famine Affluence Morality - Singer...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Singer “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Premises 2 & 3 Objections and Replies From Last Time Premise 1 (if you can prevent something bad from happening and.....) Singer's Argument: Premise 2 Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.- Does this need to be argued? Singer's Argument: Premise 3 (3) You can prevent suffering and death from lack of FSMC without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth.- The assumption is that most people spend money on things that are not necessary, and which buying some thing less expensive does not sacrifice something of SIGNIFICANT moral worth. e.g., - $$$$ steak v. $ soybeans- $$$$ cars v. $ cars (or bicycles, or mass transit)- $$$$ clothes v. $ clothes- Give the difference of $$$$ and $ to famine relief That's about $$$. Objections and Reply (1) The argument has the “absurd” consequence that we have to give to the point of marginal utility....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/27/2011 for the course PHI 2630 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '08 term at FSU.

Page1 / 10

11.07.07 Singer Famine Affluence Morality - Singer...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online