Singer’s basic argument If it is within our power to prevent something very bad without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, we should do it. Absolute poverty is very bad There are some things we can do to prevent absolute poverty Therefore we are obligated to sacrifice everything not comparable to AP to prevent AP

If the argument is sound, then we ought to live a much simpler life, and use much of our extra income to prevent Absolute poverty.

Objections Shouldn't we take care of our own We should, but just because someone is far away does not make our obligation any less— why should geographical location matter?

Property Rights Some say that if our wealth was obtained by legal and moral means, then we have a right to it. Singer: The argument does not entail that anyone is forced to give up their wealth. The conclusion is that we are obliged morally to do so. But S. thinks this theory of property rights is mistaken—leaves to much to luck

Ethics of Triage If we aid poorer countries, this will only encourage people in those country to breed, creating a worse humanitarian crisis in the future Singer: we have reason to believe that as nation becomes more wealthy, birth rates decrease (as in US and Europe)

Two types of Pacific's Killing is always wrong War is always wrong The first entails the second, but not vice-versa.

Is it always wrong to kill? Biblical reasons Sanctity of life Lackey thinks the Biblical interpretation is questionable and even if it weren’t its possible that the Bible is mistaken. “Sanctity of life” can mean (1) nothing ever should be killed or (2) as much life should be preserved as possible.

Problems with the view that killing is always wrong If killing is always wrong, then it is wrong to kill even to save the lives of many people. So it turns out that “respecting life” actually leads to more death! Also if preserving life has the highest value, then life risking behavior which we think of as heroic or at least not bad, would be morally wrong.

Right to life argument? IF we have a right, then we have a right to defend it. So if I have a right to life, I have the right to use violence to defend that right which contradicts total non-violence.

Anti-War Pacifism In war soldiers are killed, which is an intentional violation of their right to life Responses—war is self defense But self defense is only justifiable if there is no other way you could save your life. Also many soldiers who die are not in “kill or be killed” situations. Do soldiers assume the risk?

Killing of civilians Substantial civilian casualties necessary part of war. Pacifist says these deaths are like murder, since you know they will occur and you intend to do actions that will lead to these deaths. Anti-pacifists: It matters whether you intend to cause the deaths directly and whether the deaths are really necessary. But if these two conditions are met, civilian death in war is a regrettable necessity.

What about vaccinations and highways.. These also lead to foreseeable deaths? Pacifists contend that the reason these deaths are allowed is not because they are unintended and regretted, but because the people consent to them.

Utilitarian arguments Isn’t war justified to prevent a great evil? Pacifist can deny that “the ends justify the means” Also point out that wars often create little good: Mexican war, revolutionary war, WWI, What of WWII—Lackey thinks the 6.5 million who died in the war is an evil so great that it is not outweighed by defeating the Nazis and imperialistic Japanese.