Lecture 21 Notes

Preliminary Comments

1. Making Philosophy Relevant for our Lives--Many people complain that philosophy is irrelevant to how we live our lives.  In this section of the course, we will look at a philosophical argument that calls us to a radical change in our behavior.
2. The Controversial Nature of Peter Singer--Peter Singer famously argues for the morality of infanticide in certain cases.  He is known for his radical views in ethics.  But we ought not to dismiss the following argument just because he wrote it and has radical views in other areas.
3. Stepping Back and Thinking about our own Moral Integrity--Do we have what it would take to do the right thing in a culture that is morally misguided?

Singer's Argument

1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical attention are very bad things.
2. If we can prevent very bad things from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable (any) moral value, then we are morally required to do so.
1. "Comparable"--a stronger thesis; it requires us to sacrifice anything with lesser moral value than that which is being prevented.  This is Singer's view.
   
2. "Any"--a weaker thesis; it requires us only to sacrifice things with no moral value.
3. Therefore, we are morally required to prevent suffering and death from lack of food shelter, and medical attention without sacrificing something of moral value.

Motivating the Second Premise

1. Three Cases:
   
1. The "Shallow Pond" Case--Suppose you are dressed up for a night on the town.  You are walking past a shallow pond on your way to your car and you notice that a child is drowning.  It would be easy enough for you to walk out into the pond to rescue the drowning child, but you do not want to ruin your expensive suit, so you choose not to.  This choice is obviously immoral; something like the principle expressed in premise 2 captures why it is immoral.
2. Unger's "Vintage Sedan" Case--Suppose you are driving down a fairly deserted road in your newly restored sedan.  A man on the side of the road flags you down.  He was trespassing on someone else's property and was shot in the leg and he is bleeding very badly.  If he doesn't get to the hospital very soon, he will lose his leg.  He asks if you can take him to the hospital.  It would be easy enough for you to drive him to the hospital (it is on the way) but you don't want his bleeding leg to ruin the new leather in your restored sedan so you choose not to.  This choice is obviously immoral; something like the principle expressed in premise 2 captures why it is immoral.
3. The "Envelope" Case--Suppose that you receive a letter requesting a modest donation ($100) to save the lives of 3 children who are dying of malnutrition.  The organization requesting the money is reputable and you are confident that the money would be used as specified.  However, you choose not to donate the money because you are saving up for a later purchase; you throw the envelope in the trash.  Why is it that this choice doesn't seem as obviously immoral as in the previous two cases?!?  It seems that premise 2 would suggest that it is immoral.
2. The Vintage Sedan vs. The Envelope: Five Reasons To Think the Behavior In the Envelope Case is Morally Worse
   
1. Cost is less
2. Number affected by inaction is greater
3. What is lost is greater
4. Victims are not responsible for situation
5. Victims' behavior is not morally dubious

Hard and Disturbing Facts

1. Number of Humans Dying Preventable Deaths Daily: 25,000 (1,000/hour)
2. Age Group of Most Deaths: Under 6
3. Cause of Most Deaths: Depleted Immune Systems from Chronic Malnourishment
4. UN Target Request for Assistance from Developed Nations: 0.7% of GNP
5. Nations that Meet Target: Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Norway
6. Typical Nation: Japan at 0.27%
7. Worst Contributor: America at 0.1%; 0.14% with Private Contributions
8. Americans Spend: 14 Billion on Foreign Assistance, 50 Billion on Entertainment Industry, 379 Billion on Military Budget