1. Introduction to Ethical Theory
Phil 240, Week 4, Lecture 2
Benjamin Visscher Hole IV

2. Agenda
Clicker Quiz
Singer

3. 1. Singer claims that for well-off people, giving to charity is:
actually counterproductive.
morally good, but it is not wrong not to do so.
morally required, and it would be wrong for them not to do so.
neither morally good nor morally bad.
None of the above

4. 2. Singer claims that his principle:
takes no account of proximity or distance.
makes no distinctions based on how many people could help.
both a and b.
neither a nor b.

5. 3. According to Singer, the fact that many other people are in a position to donate to famine relief:
makes both a psychological difference and a difference to our moral obligations.
makes a psychological difference, but no difference to our moral obligations.
makes no psychological difference, but makes a difference to our moral obligations.
makes neither a psychological difference nor a difference to our moral obligations.
None of the above

6. Preliminary Thought Experiment
Pond
Envelope

7. Reflection Exercise
Your Donation
What It Can Provide
$35
Two high-energy meals a day to 200 children
$50
Vaccinations for 50 people against meningitis, measles, polio or other deadly epidemics
$70
Two basic suture kits to repair minor shrapnel wounds
$100
Infection-fighting antibiotics to treat nearly 40 wounded children
$250
A sterilization kit for syringes and needles used in mobile vaccination campaigns
$500
A medical kit containing basic drugs, supplies, equipment, and dressings to treat 1,500 patients for three months
$1000
Emergency medical supplies to aid 5,000 disaster victims for an entire month
$5500
An emergency health kit to care for 10,000 displaced people for three months
Estimate how much money you have spent on entertainment and luxuries this past year (movies, music, toys, comforts, eating out … everything not necessary to your survival).
Estimate how much good that money would do if donated to charity (Oxfam, Doctors without Borders, Unicef, etc.).
Compare your responses … Are the two of “comparable moral importance”? (

8. Singer’s Argument
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad … *
Therefore, members of affluent societies have a straightforward duty to give money to prevent starvation.
* things which members have affluent societies have the power to prevent without thereby …

9. Singer’s Argument Premise One
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad …
Therefore, members of affluent societies have a straightforward duty to give money to prevent starvation.
“This principle differs from most standard versions of act utilitarianism … it requires only the prevention of bad things, but not necessarily the maximization of good things”

10. Or, on weaker version, “anything of moral significance”
Singer’s Argument
Premise One
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad … 
Therefore, members of affluent societies have a straightforward duty to give money to prevent starvation.
Or, on weaker version, “anything of moral significance”
Comparatively, this is a very low bar for demandingness.

11. Singer’s Argument Premise One
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad … 
Therefore, members of affluent societies have a straightforward duty to give money to prevent starvation.
General principles of impartiality make the proximity or distance of those in need irrelevant.
Persons in the same circumstances have the same obligations; that others share an obligation does not lessen it.

12. Singer’s Argument Premise One
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad …
Therefore, members of affluent societies have a straightforward duty to give money to prevent starvation.
Obligatory actions: “Actions that one morally ought to do” (Timmons, 3). Supererogatory actions: Actions that go above and beyond one’s obligation.

13. Singer’s Argument Premise One
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad …
Therefore, members of affluent societies have a straightforward duty to give money to prevent starvation.
Features of Singer's moral principle
Takes no account of proximity of those being helped.
Takes no account of how many other people are in a position to help.
A consequence of Singer's moral principle
“The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not in the place we normally draw it.”

14. Singer’s Argument Premise Two
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad …
Therefore, members of affluent societies have a straightforward duty to give money to prevent starvation.
Objections?

15. Upshots
“The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not in the place where we normally draw it … People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief … This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified … We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give money to famine relief”

16. Prima Facie Concern Objection Reply
Singer's argument requires too drastic a revision to our moral scheme.
Reply
“My conclusion follows from the principle which I advanced earlier, and unless that principle is rejected, or the arguments shown to be unsound, I think the conclusion must stand, however strange it appears.” 16

17. Demandingness, Redux? Objection
“It follows from some forms of utilitarian theory that we all ought, morally, to be working full time to increase the balance of happiness over misery”

18. Demandingness, Redux? Objection Singer’s Response
“It follows from some forms of utilitarian theory that we all ought, morally, to be working full time to increase the balance of happiness over misery”
The approach is far less demanding, but still asks us to do a lot. “This conclusion is one which we may be reluctant to face. I cannot see, though, why it should be regarded as a criticism of the position for which I have argued, rather than a criticism of our ordinary standards of behavior”

19. The ‘Population’ Objection
“until there is effective population control, relieving famine merely postpones starvation”

20. The ‘Population’ Objection
Singer’s Response
“until there is effective population control, relieving famine merely postpones starvation”
“one could accept the argument [objection] without drawing the conclusion that it absolves one from any obligation to do anything to prevent famine. The conclusion that should be drawn is that the best means of preventing famine, in the long run, is population control”

21. Practical concerns …
Governments, not citizens, should be providing foreign aid.
Reply: Because they are not, it is our responsibility to do so.
Giving money to famine relief will only encourage overpopulation.
Reply: The argument can then be taken to support giving money to population control efforts.
Giving large sums of money away could have negative effect on the economy.
Reply: Perhaps, but we can give much more than we do without harming the economy. 21

22. Is Utilitarianism Too Demanding?
Substantive Objection
Utilitarianism forbids such actions as going on vacation when the money would do more good when donated to charity.

23. An ethical theory should be livable
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

24. How to Live an Ethical Life

25. Singer is a good utilitarian
Strongly Agree
Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neutral
Somewhat Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

26. Discussion Question One
“Suppose that at some time in the future, humankind has solved all of its problems and entered a period of peace and economic prosperity for all. In the meantime, people have been engaged in space exploration and have recently discovered a new planet in which there are untold billions of people (perhaps human, perhaps alien of some sort …), all near starvation. To avoid mass starvation and death on this planet will require all people on earth to reduce their standard of living to the minimum required for survival for many generations. Are those living on earth morally required to do this …?” (BonJour/Baker, 352)

27. Discussion Question Two
“Here is a short list of factors that might seem to be morally relevant to how you can or should allocate resources … family relationships, especially the duty to care for and educate one’s children; friendship and community relationships, of varying degrees of scope; personal goals or projects of any sort that do not contribute directly to such aid; and voluntary undertaken obligations of many sorts to other people that do not affect their survival. And also, whether you or your society or country are in any way responsible for the people in question being in such dire need; and whether and to what degree they themselves are responsible for the situation. Is Singer right that none of these considerations make any moral difference?” (BonJour/Baker, )