{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

118 Singer on famine relief

118 Singer on famine relief - In my acting on this...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality Drowning child example Famine relief example Preventable disease example Singer’s argument 1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, medicine or drowning are bad. 2. If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, one is morally obligated to do so. 3. Better off people can prevent much suffering and death from the above mentioned causes without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. 4. Therefore, they are obligated to do this up to the point where they would be making such a sacrifice. Comments Sacrificing comparable moral value: causing something equally bad, doing something wrong in itself, failing to promote an equally significant moral good.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: In my acting on this principle: • Proximity makes no difference • How many others could act similarly makes no difference. Outcome of argument • What is traditionally thought of as charitably, morally optional behavior is actually morally obligatory behavior. • Most people do far less than is needed to fulfill this obligation. Objection Too demanding. Morality should be within the capacities of average people. Asking too much undermines compliance. Implementation : Giving money vs. compaigning for government aid. Giving money for famine relief vs. giving for population control Giving until one’s marginal utility is just above those suffering famine vs. giving until one sacrifices something morally significant....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online