Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
What is Singer main thesis? What is his argument (=reasons) for that thesis? Are we convinced by that argument? Why? Why not?
Singer's premises
Compare Singer's second premise with a stronger version of it. Singer says that he believes the second to be true, but does not want to use it. Why?
Strong: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. Weak: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.
Singer's premises
!
Objection 1
I am morally required to help those who are around me, my friends, family and fellow citizens. But I am not morally required to help people who is far away and know nothing about.
Objection 2
!
Objection 2 improved
If everyone in my circumstances gives !5, then the problem of famine would be solved. Therefore, I am not morally obliged to give more than !5.
!
I am not morally required to help other people if nobody else helps. Isn't it unfair that I should be donating a large part of my salary when nobody else does?
If everyone in my circumstances gives !5, then the problem of famine would be solved. Therefore, if everyone in my circumstances gave !5, I would not be morally obliged to give more than !5.
Objection 3
If we are morally required to donate so much, then people in need would have to start having more than they need, perhaps much more. And we would be very tight ourselves. Some of our sacrifice would have been in vain. This is not only a bad consequence of your view. It is an absurd or paradoxical consequence. Why? Because it follows from your view that if we all do what is morally required for us to do, then the result would be worse than it would be if we did not do what is morally required from us (if we did less that that).
!
Two possible futures -Everyone does their moral duty 10$ each 100$ each 3$ each -Everyone does less than their moral duty 30$ each
Objection 4
You are missing the distinction between charity and duty. I agree with you that it is a morally good thing to help people in need, but we are not morally required to help. We praise people who do this. But that is an act of charity -not duty.
Objection 5
The revision of our moral conceptual scheme is too drastic. People do not usually think that failure to donate part (most?) of their income is a moral fault.
Objection 6
Even if you are advocating a revision (=change) of our moral scheme, it looks as the wrong revision to pursue. If we want people to behave morally, we should given them a moral code that is realistic, one that we may realistically expect them to comply with. If we are too demanding, they will do nothing. If we are a bit less demanding, they may do something. This is why we have moral codes that are not too demanding, and it does not look a good idea to change them in the way you propose.
!
Objection 7
Your view implies that we are all morally required to work extra hours, as hard as we can, and then give away the fruit of our efforts. And we are morally reproachable persons if we do otherwise. Isn't that absurd? Additional thought: that consequence looks to me so absurd, that even if I cannot find a fault in your argument, I am sure there might be one somewhere on it.
!
'Practical objections'
!
It's the government business, not ours. Relieving famine by donations do not really solve the deep problem, it merely postpones it. What is needed is structural changes, and population control. If we give too much, our economy will slow down.