Charity

Question 1

What’s the basic idea of Singer’s account on charity?

Answer 1

• we have a moral duty to give
• not supererogatory

draws upon the drowning child

Question 2

Singer’s argument in standard form

Answer 2

1. suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad
2. if it is in our power to prevent bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we ought, morally to do it
3. it is within our power to prevent suffering and death by giving to charity
4. ## In giving a significant portion of our wealth, we are not sacrificing anything of comparable moral importanceC: we ought to give a significant portion of our wealth to effective charities to prevent suffering and death

Question 3

The two versions

Answer 3

Strong version: if it is in our power to prevent something BAD from happening without sacrificing anything of COMPARABLE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE we ought to do it
- give to the level of marginal utility

Moderate version: if it is in our power to prevent something VERY BAD from happening without sacrificing ANYTHING MORALLY SIGNIFICANT , we ought to do it
- give until consumer society slows down and perhaps dissapears entirely

Question 4

Opposing Singer’s premise 2

Answer 4

1. The child in the pond is nearby
   - -> singer: doesn’t matter, can’t discriminate
2. in the drowning child case you are the only one that can save them
   - -> leads to the paradox: if everyone gave it would be too much so should I?
   - —> singer: doesn’t matter

Question 5

Opposing Singer’s premise 3

Answer 5

1. charities are ineffective
   - –> rebuttal 1: they are effective
   - –> rebuttal 2: there are ways, other than charity of preventing bad

Question 6

Act Utilitarianism Problem

Answer 6

similar to act utilitarianism
—> demandingness objection

but … it’s different enough from AU

• doesn’t need to promote good
• don’t need to do bad to prevent worse
• allows for special obligaitions

still very demanding
—> singer: that’s a problem with society not my argument

Question 7

Cullity argument Against the Severe Demand

Answer 7

1. we save lives because life enhancing goods make life worth living
2. if we acted in accordance with the SD our lives would not be worth living

Question 8

What is the dilemma that arises from the SD?

Answer 8

A defender of the severe demand must say either:

1. other people’s interests in a non-altruistically focused life give us reasons to help them, reasons that make it wrong not to help them

or

2. only people’s basic interests in life (a non-altruistic life) give us reasons to help them

1 = not valid –> Cullity’s argument

2 = not valid –> people’s interests in a non-altruistically focused lives give us reason to help us

Question 9

Conclusion of Cullity’s argument

Answer 9

REJECT THE SEVERE DEMAND

• we are allowed to pursue a non-altruistically focused life but not too frivolous
• aggregative approach: when overall sacrifice is large you can stop
• NOT iterative approach: treat each incident independently