Rich and Poor Flashcards
(15 cards)
what is the main theme of this topic?
do denizens of rich countries have a moral duty to help people in poor countries with their income
what is mozi’s demandingness objection
utilitarianism demands that we sacrifice our own interests and the interests of those we care about if doing so advances the greater happiness of the world.
Mozi agrees impartial care is the moral thing, but he questions if its possible to really practice it
does utilitarianism demand charitable giving?
Singer says that acts that are considered supererogatory by commonsense morality are obligatory under utilitarianism. Utilitarian’s ought to give until they reach the level of marginal utility, meaning by giving more, they would cause more suffering to themselves than the pleasure provided to the receiver
What is the utilitarian’s(Singer’s) response to the demandingness objection
Singer feel this is not a problem for utilitarian’s, since they already accept the utilitarian demands. It’s only when we turn a blind eye to the consequences of our actions that we feel comfortable engaging in behavior that falls short of mortality
what is Singer’s drowning child argument
P1: You have a moral obligation to save the drowning child in the pond eve if it means getting your clothes muddy
P2: The relationship between you and the drowning child in the pond , and you and the starving child in the poor country, are morally the same
C: You have a moral obligation to save the starving child in the poor country, even if it means sacrificing your material wealth
What is the first objection(knowledge/distance) to the drowning child argument
the drowning child is right before my eyes, but I can’t see the starving child
what is singer’s reply to this objection
with instant communication and swift transportation, this cannot be a justifiable excuse anymore
what is the second objection(causla disconnect) to the drowning child argument
if i dont jump into the pool, that specific child will die, but no specific child will die if i fail to donate. Or could it be that we just dont know which child will die?
what is the third objection(cause impotence) to the drowning child argument
the drowning child is a problem i can solve, but even if i donate everything i have, I will make very little difference
what is the fourth objection(my part is small)
I’m the only person that can save the drowning child, but there are so many people that can help with the starving child in the poor country, why single me out?
my obligation is proportionately small
we agree with premise 1 if we (implicitly) agree with 2 additional claims, what are they
Singer’s principle: if it is on our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything morally important, we ought to, morally, do it.
Singer’s value comparison: the drowning child’s death is morally bad, any sacrifice i need to make to save them is not morally significant
what are the two versions of singer’s principle?
moderate principle: if it is in out power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to, morally, do it.
strong principle: if it is in our power to stop something bad from happening, without causing something comparably bad to happen, we ought to, morally, do it.
how do we explain singer’s value comparison, that the thing sacrificed is not as morally significant as the childs life, in an acceptable way for a utilitarian?
quantify using cost-benefit analysis, more specifically, compare expected lifetime income
what is the hypothetical “friedman reply” to singer’s argument
he compares which is higher between the expected lifetime income of the life saved and the expected returns from investing the sum of money needed to replace the clothes and get cleaned.
from that we can deduce what is the maximum cost to incur to save the child.
the conclusion is that the morally right thing to do is to sacrifice up to and no more than I$750 to save a child in a poor country, while saving a child is estimated to cost US$3337, which means its morally wrong to donate to save a child
closing thoughts of the friedman reply, what are the implications
IF imaginary friedman’s math is accepted, then the life of a drowning child in a rich country has a higher utilitarian value than a starving child in a poor country.
this implies that singer’s premise 2 is false, and the drowning argument is unsound
