Inconsistencies - 2.1

Question 1

Background

Answer 1

• Gadflies, inspired by Socrates, challenge “common sense” and reveal contradictions

Question 2

Poverty Statistics

Answer 2

• Nearly 1/2 the populations lives on 5.50 USD/day
• 1.90 USD per person is extreme poverty
• 385 million children in extreme poverty
• 1 every 5 seconds, children under 15 dying

Question 3

Peter Singer - Profile

Answer 3

• Contemporary gadfly
• Professor at Princeton
• “Most influential LIVING philosopher”
• “The most dangerous man in the world”
• Focuses on inconsistencies and has bold ideas on tackling extreme poverty

Question 4

DUTY VS CHARITY

Answer 4

DUTY
- Required
- Is NOT optional
CHARITY
- Expression of good will
- Sometimes charity is a duty (opinion)

Question 5

LUXURY VS NECESSITY

Answer 5

LUXURY
- A want

NECESSITY
- Biological need
- Different people have different needs (medical needs)

Question 6

Common Belief

Answer 6

Helping the needy is a matter of charity, not duty

Question 7

Depiction of Common Belief

Answer 7

• Many believe helping the poor is charity, not a moral duty
• Singer argues this belief is inconsistent with our other moral values

Question 8

Case one: Dora

Answer 8

Dora, a retired teacher, delivers a homeless boy for $1,000, thinking he’ll be adopted, then she buys a new TV. She later learns he’ll be killed for organ trafficking and resolves to rescue him.

Question 9

Argument 1: Dora

Answer 9

• Dora should give up her TV to save a child’s life
• Rich nations are in a similar position and should sacrifice luxuries to save needy children

Question 10

Problem with Argument 1

Answer 10

• Very commanding
• DOING VS ALLOWING distinction (Dora isn’t doing the harm if she doesn’t knowingly cause it, we are ALLOWING it since we can stop it)
• He thinks people need to ZERO out their luxuries

Question 11

Case Two: Bugatti

Answer 11

Bob sees a child about to be hit by a train, he can save the child by pressing a button but this would destroy his Bugatti - Bob lets the child die and drives away

DID BOB DO THE RIGHT THING?

Question 12

Depiction of Case Two

Answer 12

• Singer thinks that Bob made the wrong decision
• He had an obligation/duty to save the child instead of his car
• He thinks that we would agree

Question 13

Argument 2

Answer 13

• Bob should give up his Bugatti to save a child
• People in rich nations should sacrifice luxuries to save needy children

Question 14

1972 Argument

Answer 14

• “Suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad”
• “Those who disagree read no further” (Singer, 1972)
• HELPING OTHERS MIGHT ACTUALLY BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY, NOT JUST A CHOICE!!!

Question 15

Case Three: Drowning

Answer 15

• Should you save the child from drowning, if it will ruin your expensive shoes?
• Singer thinks that the answer is YES

Question 16

Argument 3

Answer 16

You have a moral duty to sacrifice your shoes to save the child; it isn’t an optional act of charity

Question 17

Prevention Principle

Answer 17

• “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)

SIMPLE TERMS:
- If we can stop something bad from happening without giving up something equally important, we should do it

Question 18

Common Belief Argument

Answer 18

1. Suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care is bad - ASSUMPTION
2. Prevention Principle
3. It is in our power to prevent suffering (1)
4. We need to prevent suffering

Question 19

Singer View on Common Belief Argument

Answer 19

• Singer is showing that people who think helping the needy is optional actually agree with ideas that say we should help
• This creates a contradiction, and Singer uses it to challenge the idea that helping is just a choice

Question 20

Responding to Elenchus Method (3 strategies)

Answer 20

1. Conservative Method
2. Revisionary Method (+)
3. Revisionary Method (-)

Question 21

Strategy 1 (Conservative Method)

Answer 21

• When faced with an inconsistency, explain it as only inconsistent as it initially appears
• Add extra explanations to show inconsistencies

Ex; Hot-dog eating and dog-fighting seem different but on the SURFACE they have the same immoral factors

• CONTRADICITING

Question 22

Strategy 2 (Revisionary (+)

Answer 22

Say that “these are both morally okay”, there is no inconsistency

Ex; animals are like machines and don’t have souls, minds, don’t feel pain

Question 23

Strategy 3 (Revisionary (-)

Answer 23

Say that “these are both morally wrong”, there is no inconsistency

Question 24

Cautionary Remark

Answer 24

• There tends to be an overreliance on cautionary methods when responding to challenges
• Reliance on strategy 1 and don’t change their views (suspicious)
• Sign of bias