world hunger and poverty Flashcards
singer’s charity argument
3 premises + conclusion
1) suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, medical care are very bad
2) if we can do anything to reduce suffering, we ought morally to do it
3) if affluent people forgo some luxeries, they can save people from starving to death with the saved money
c) affluent people ought morally to forgo luxeries to save people from starvation, shelter, and medical care
drowning child example
singer
if we see a child drowning in a shallow pool, we’re morally obligated to help them, even if our clothes get wet
the cost of the child’s life outweighs the cost of wet clothes
premise 2
utilitarianism
the right actions reduce suffering and increase happiness
supererogatory
above the call of duty
this is how we think of charity
what does singer think about supererogation and duty?
he thinks charity is NOT supererogatory; donating to charity is the bare minimum
what are the objections to singer’s argument?
4
- proximity objection
- fair share objection
- premise 3 objection
- efficiency objection
proximity objection
theoretical
**our proximity and distance to who needs aid makes a moral difference
**- singer → proximity and distance don’t matter morally; asks us to consider obligation not to harm others (2 buttons example)
- proximity and distance don’t matter morally to do our duties not to harm, so there’s no reason why proximity and distance matter to our duties to aid
fair share objection
theoretical
**many people and organizations donate money and aid to starving people around the world so why do i have to give my share too?
**- singer → we live in an imperfect world where not everyone gives their fair share and the number of people donating to charities doesn’t reduce the moral obligation to give
premise 3 objection
practical
**how can we be sure that our gifts in fact save lives? what if the money we thought was going to malaria nets and medical care go to the wrong people?
**- research charities
efficiency objection
practical
**wouldn’t it be more effective to invest in our own financial projects and accumulate money for ourselves and then donate to charities?
**- singer → the moral duty is to donate now, not let people starve for now in order to do something later
arthur’s reply to singer
- claims that singer’s premise 2 is the “greater moral evil rule”
- introduces the idea of entitlements to challenge the “greater moral evil rule”
moral rights
and the types
if you have a moral right against someone from doing X, that person has a duty not to do X
- negative: natural noninterference
- positive: come about via an agreement, contract, promise, etc
arthur’s criticism
- distance strangers don’t have a right to our help, because we haven’t made an agreement such that the strangers gain a positive right
- the child doesn’t have a positive right to help, there was no agreement, so their rights aren’t being violated
- when it comes to aiding distant strangers, we’re entitled to invoke our rights as a reason for not helping them
moral desert
what you deserve for your actions
positive moral desert
positive outcomes based on their good actions
- e.g. a hardworking student who consistently gets good grades deserves a high final grade
negative moral desert
negative outcome based on bad actions
- e.g. a high profile criminal deserves punishment for his crime
