PETER SINGER ON AFFLUENCE & GLOBAL POVERTYPHIL 102, SPRING 2017CHRISTINA HENDRICKSUNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Except images licensed otherwise, this presentation is licensed CC BY 4.0

TWO WAYS SINGER ARGUES IN THESE ARTICLES1. Argument from a principle he thinks

we will all accept (“Famine, Affluence & Morality”)

2. Argument from analogy (mostly in “The Singer Solution”)

If morally we should do or not do an act here

Morally we should do/not do the same in a similar situation

Then

Situation 1

Situation 2

ARGUMENT FROM A PRINCIPLE

ARGUMENT FROM “FAMINE, AFFLUENCE & MORALITY”1. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and

medical care are bad” 2. (two versions of principle)

a. If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, morally we should do so (stronger)

b. …without sacrificing anything morally significant… (weaker)

3. Many of us can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance or even anything morally significant

Therefore, those of us who fall under (3) morally ought to help prevent the things mentioned in (1)

EVALUATING ARGUMENTSRemember the steps in evaluating arguments (can do these in either order):

1. Are the premises true?

2. If the premises are true, does the conclusion follow with certainty or high probability?

• Deduction & induction

1 2 3

conclusion

EVALUATING SINGER’S ARGUMENTGo to the document linked below and write down your evaluation of the argument:1. Premises true?2. Conclusion follows with certainty or

high probability?3. Anything else you think should be

taken into consideration when evaluating this argument?

https://is.gd/phil102_singerunderscore

IMPLICATIONSDraw line between morally required & supererogatory differently

We should be “working full time to relieve great suffering” (“Famine”)• Doesn’t have to just be donating money…

Comfortably off people should give 10% of income (“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” (Singer 1999))

Creating bricks, Flickr photo shared by International Disaster Volunteers, licensed CC BY 2.0

Donate clothes poster, Flickr photo shared by Christian Guthier, licensed CC BY 2.0

5% for those doing quite well ($100,000 to $150,000 U.S.), more for those with higher incomes, less for lower(The Life You Can Save (Singer 2009))

ARGUMENTS FROM ANALOGIES

THE CHILD IN THE POND

“She Summons Ducks,” Flickr photo by Peter Lindbergh, licensed CC-BY

THE CHILD ON THE STREET (DORA EXAMPLE)

“Dogs Get Better Treatment, Homeless Boy, Jakarta, Flickr photo shared by Danumurthi Mahendra, licensed CC-BY

BOB AND HIS BUGATTI

Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport Red/Black, Flickr photo shared by Axion 23, licensed CC-BY

EVALUATING ARGUMENTS FROM ANALOGY

Singer’s take the following form:1. It is morally wrong to do action X in

situation A2. If it is morally wrong to do X in A, then

it is morally wrong to do X in a similar situation, B

Therefore, it is morally wrong to do X in B

Can ask if both premises are true, including asking if the situations are similar enough for (2)

RELATION TO UTILTARIANISMSinger’s arguments are supposed to be acceptable to anyone, not just utilitarians

But how does utilitarianism play a role in his arguments?

ACTING ON ARGUMENTS“What is the point of relating philosophy to public (and personal) affairs if we do not take our conclusions seriously? In this instance, taking our conclusion seriously means acting on it.” (“Famine”)

The Life You Can Save website, with a calculator for how much you should give, a pledge to give that much, and charities that have been researched:

http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/