Singer, Le Guin, Williams (Questions 37-44) Flashcards
- How does Peter Singer argue for the conclusion that we should all give away as much money as we
can to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care (without sacrificing
something of comparable moral importance)? What premises does he use? How does he motivate
those premises?
Peter Singer argues that individuals should give away as much money as they can to prevent suffering and death, particularly from the lack of basic necessities like food, shelter, and medical care. He builds his argument on two premises: (1) Suffering and death from lack of these essentials are bad, and (2) If it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so. Singer motivates these premises by appealing to the moral principle of impartiality, asserting that the well-being of all individuals, regardless of proximity or personal connection, holds equal moral weight.
- Is Singer’s argument compelling? Why or why not? What are the ramifications of Singer’s argument?
Singer’s argument is compelling due to its emphasis on the moral duty to alleviate suffering and prevent death, while others may have reservations about the practicality and feasibility of such an extreme obligation. The ramifications of Singer’s argument, if widely accepted, could lead to a significant redistribution of resources to address global poverty and humanitarian crises. It challenges traditional views on personal financial autonomy, urging individuals to prioritize the needs of distant others over personal comforts, potentially sparking debates on the ethical obligations in the face of global disparities.
- Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” illustrates a potential problem for
utilitarianism. What is that problem? How does the story illustrate it? [the “greater good” worry]
Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” highlights a potential problem for utilitarianism known as the “greater good” worry. The story presents a utopian city, Omelas, where the happiness and well-being of its residents depend on the profound suffering of a single child confined in a basement. Utilitarianism, which prioritizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, faces a moral dilemma when considering whether the happiness of the majority justifies the severe suffering of an innocent individual. The story challenges the utilitarian principle by prompting readers to reflect on the ethical implications of sacrificing one for the supposed greater good and explores the moral complexities inherent in utilitarian reasoning.
- Closely related to 39, Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” can be read as
illustrating the objection that utilitarianism can recommend evil. How does it illustrate this
possibility? How might Mill respond to this worry? Is that potential response satisfactory?
“The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” suggests the objection that utilitarianism can recommend evil, as it portrays a scenario where the happiness of the majority depends on the severe suffering of a single innocent individual. Utilitarianism’s focus on maximizing overall happiness could, in extreme cases, justify morally objectionable actions for the greater good. Mill might respond by emphasizing the importance of qualitative distinctions in pleasures and arguing that true happiness involves higher pleasures that align with virtue. However, whether this response is satisfactory depends on one’s assessment of the moral complexities involved in sacrificing individual well-being for collective happiness.
- Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” can also be read as illustrating the objection that virtue is valuable for its own sake. How does it illustrate this idea? Mill responds to this objection directly—what does he say, and is it a satisfactory response to “Omelas”?
Le Guin’s story can be interpreted as illustrating the objection that virtue is valuable for its own sake. The narrative implies that some individuals, represented by those who walk away from Omelas, reject the utilitarian calculus and prioritize the inherent value of virtue over collective happiness.
Mill responds by stating that virtue is valuable BECAUSE it promotes happiness, and readiness to make sacrifices for the happiness of others is the highest virtue.
Mill’s response being satisfactory:
Mill’s utilitarian philosophy provides a systematic and consequentialist approach to ethics. By emphasizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, he offers a rational basis for evaluating moral actions. In the context of “Omelas,” Mill’s framework can be applied to justify the overall happiness of the society, albeit at the expense of one individual.
Dissatisfaction in Mill’s response:
“Omelas” raises questions about the intrinsic value of virtue and whether it should be sacrificed for collective happiness. Mill’s utilitarian calculus, which prioritizes overall happiness, may overlook the moral weight of actions when they compromise fundamental virtues, challenging the idea that virtue is valuable for its own sake.
- Chekhov’s “Gooseberries” contains the following quote: “At the door of every contented, happy man somebody should stand with a little hammer, constantly tapping, to remind him that unhappy people exist.” How does this quote relate to utilitarianism?
Chekhov’s quote from “Gooseberries” suggests a critique of utilitarianism by highlighting the idea that constant reminders of the existence of unhappy people are necessary. This implies that pure pursuit of personal happiness, as advocated by utilitarianism, may lead to a lack of awareness or concern for the suffering of others. The quote underscores the potential shortcomings of a philosophy solely focused on individual or collective happiness without sufficient consideration for the well-being of all.
- Chekhov’s “Gooseberries” contains the following quote: “Don’t settle in, don’t let yourself fall
asleep! As long as you’re young, strong, energetic, don’t weary of doing good! There is no happiness
and there shouldn’t be, and if there is any meaning and purpose in life, then that meaning and
purpose are not at all in our happiness, but in something more intelligent and great. Do good!”
How does this quote relate to utilitarianism?
Chekhov’s second quote from “Gooseberries” aligns with utilitarianism by encouraging individuals to do good, emphasizing the importance of energetic and altruistic actions. It suggests that the meaning and purpose in life go beyond personal happiness and reside in intelligent and great pursuits, aligning with the utilitarian idea that contributing to the well-being of others is integral to a meaningful and purposeful life. The quote echoes utilitarian principles by emphasizing the value of doing good for the broader benefit of society.
- Bernard Williams gives two example cases, Jim and George. What are the examples/cases? How
does Williams think the utilitarian will think about each of these cases? How does this illustrate a
problem for utilitarianism? What is the problem?
Bernard Williams presents two cases, Jim and George, to illustrate a problem for utilitarianism. In Jim’s case, he must decide whether to sacrifice one innocent person to save nineteen, or to allow all twenty to be executed. In George’s case, he has a moral dilemma in which he has to decide between choosing a job as a scientist for a company that constructs materials that are negative for humanity–whilst supporting his family as an ill man. Utilitarianism, focused on maximizing overall happiness, would endorse both morally troubling actions. The problem highlighted by Williams is the theory’s demanding nature, potentially requiring individuals to violate fundamental moral intuitions for the greater good. The examples emphasize the tension between utilitarian principles and individual moral commitments, revealing the theory’s potential to endorse ethically problematic actions.
It is also important to considering the following related to Jim and George:
Integrity–Causing vs. Doing
Doing vs. Not preventing.
Impartiality–Significance of one’s own loves, projects, commitments.
