Lecture 22 Notes

Review: 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.
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.

Responding to the Cases

1. To respond to the cases, one needs to explain the conflicting intuitions that we have between the Pond/Sedan case, on the one hand, and the Envelope case on the other.
2. Three Possibilities
1. The Envelope scenario is significantly different from the Pond/Sedan scenario.
• Reply: Modify Cases To Show That Adding or Substracting Alleged Relevant Feature Makes No Difference
• For example, consider a candidate relevant difference: the availability of others to help.  Others are available in the envelope case but not in the pond case.  However, one can modify the pond case as follows...suppose that there are hundreds of people standing around the pond watching the child drown.  Does this make you any less obligated to go in after the child in your suit?  Of course not.  So we are still morally obligated to help even though others are available. 
2. Our normal intuitions about the pond/sedan case are mistaken: it is morally okay not to help.
• Reply: If We Know Anything About Morality, We Know That Not Helping is Seriously Wrong
3. Our normal intuitions about the envelope case are mistaken: it is morally wrong not to give.
• Note: Many Plausible Explanations For This Mistaken Attitude.  For example, we might have lacked awareness about our ability to help.
  

Key Features of the Second Premise

1. Irrelevance of Proximity
1. Distance may make us feel less obligated, but it doesn't remove actual obligation.
2. Appeals to ignorance and inability are no longer plausible.  There are reliable organizations with the "pipelines" in place to help people who are suffering in other parts of the world.
2. Irrelevance of Others' Involvement
1. The inactivity of others may make us feel less obligated, but it doesn't remove actual obligation.
3. Only Need to Prevent Bad, Not Promote Good

Radical Consequences of the Singer/Unger Argument

1. Traditional Demarcation Between Duty and Charity is Mistaken
1. We might have thought that helping the needy is an act of charity, not a duty.
2. This argument points out that helping the needy is morally obligated.
3. It is immoral not to help the needy!
2. Rethinking Types of Giving
1. Helping Those in Need vs. Helping Those Really in Need
• Giving toys to children who cannot afford them at Christmas time is helping those in need.
• Giving nourishment to starving children is helping those really in need.
2. Note: Given Our Actual Situation, Rarely Need To Sacrifice One Form of Giving for Another

Objections to Singer's Argument

1. Too Drastic
1. Reply 1--Progress sometimes requires drastic revisions.
• Slavery Analogy--Surely abolishing slavery was a drastic revision of our culture.  But just because it was drastic does not mean that it should not have been done.
2. Reply 2--Congruance with the Catholic Tradition.  It is in keeping with the Catholic tradition to believe that we have a moral obligation to help the poor, even if it involves sacrificing some of our comforts.
2. Extreme Socialism
1. Reply 1--Even if Singer's view is socialism, it is a dubious assumption that all socialism is bad.
2. Reply 2--Singer's view is not socialism.  The argument requires only preventing very bad things from happening (not making everyone equal).
3. Practical Objections
1. Always Will Be Starvation
• Reply 1--False Assumption
• Reply 2--One way to eliminate starvation is to work for population control.  So one could contribute to organizations that work toward this goal.
• Reply 3--Return to the drowning child case: Even if there always will be a child drowning, does that make you less obligated to help as much as you can?!?
2. Responsibility of Government
• Reply--If you think that directly helping needy people is the responsibility of government, then you have a moral obligation to work to change government.
3. Giving Will Undermine Our Economy
• Reply--Confusing two scenarios: (1) All Give--Only a small amount is required of each so there will be little impact on the economy.  (2) Few Give--There will be little impact on the economy.