Peter Singer + Replies Flashcards
(12 cards)
What was Singer’s 1972 paper called?
Famine, Affluence and Morality
What was the example Singer used to illustrate his general principle?
The pond example
What is the general principle for singer?
If it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, we ought, morally, to do it.
What is the general assumption Singer makes in his argument?
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are a bad thing
What is singers standard argument version?
P1. General principle
P2. General assumption
C. We ought to prevent suffering and death whenever we can do so without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance
What is effective altruism?
Using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible.
What makes the less demanding version of singers argument different to his standard version?
In the less demanding version we only have to sacrifice things that aren’t morally significant whereas in the standard version we must sacrifice anything that is less morally significant than the cause.
Why should we feel guilt for buying unnecessary things?
We are wasting money that could have gone to a more morally significant cause.
What’s the best INITIAL reply to singers argument?
Distance: In the pond example we are right by the drowning child whereas in the case of starving children etc. we are far away.
Why does the distance argument not work?
Morality is not concerned with distance, it makes no difference in the modern day if we are next to the child or far from them. All that matters is our ability to help.
Who made the fair share argument? What is it?
Miller. It is the idea that we are only morally obligated to do our part in solving the situation. Eg if everyone giving 5 pound is enough to end poverty then I need only give my 5 pound even if others don’t do the same.
What is the modified pond example?
There are 5 children drowning in a pond. There are 5 bystanders and you are one. Your fair share would be to save one child but if you do so and the other bystanders don’t do the same then are you morally obligated to save the other children?
