{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

11.07.07 Singer Famine Affluence Morality

11.07.07 Singer Famine Affluence Morality - Singer Famine...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Singer “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Premises 2 & 3 Objections and Replies
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
From Last Time Premise 1 (if you can prevent something bad from happening and ..... )
Background image of page 2
Singer's Argument: Premise 2 Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. - Does this need to be argued?
Background image of page 3

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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., - $$$$ steak v. $ soybeans - $$$$ cars v. $ cars (or bicycles, or mass transit) - $$$$ clothes v. $ clothes - Give the difference of $$$$ and $ to famine relief That's about $$$.
Background image of page 4
Objections and Reply (1) The argument has the “absurd” consequence that we have to give to the point of marginal utility. - Marginal utility = until we reach the same level as those who are in famine, or, until giving to them no longer has an effect.
Background image of page 5

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}