PHIL 200 1st Edition Lecture 25Outline of Last Lecture I: Fred StoryII: Denying P1 and P2Outline of Current LectureIII: Singer’s Marginality ArgumentCurrent LectureIII: Singer’s Marginality ArgumentP1. If X is a moral patient, then X must be a moral agentP2. Animals are clearly not moral agents (they eat and torture each other all the time, and we don’t hold them morally responsible)________________________________C1. Then animals aren’t moral patients eitherSinger’s Conclusion?“If follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm [or whatever]. To do so is not charitable, or generous. Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called ‘supererogatory’—an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so”Version 1 of Singer’s Argument?P1. If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do itP2. It is in our power to prevent something bad (suffering and death from lack of food, etc.) without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importanceThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.__________________________C1. So we ought to do it (give to charity, etc.)Version 2 of Singer’s Argument?P1. If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally important, we ought, morally, to do it.P2. It is in our power to prevent something bad (suffering and death from lack of food, etc.) from happening without sacrificing anything of moral importance_____________________________C1. So we ought to do it (give to charity,
View Full Document
Unlocking...