Famine:SingerSinger argues people in affluent countries, like the US, have moral duty to give far more than we actually do in international aid for famine relief, disaster relief etc.He thinks that we need to drastically alter our way of life in order to help others.Famine1. We need to make a distinction between two issues:a. What our obligations are in preventing famineb. What the causes of famine are, and what is the best practice for addressing these causesAnswers for the second question, can influence answers the first question. For example, if it is impossible to do X then we might not be obligated to do XAnswers to the first question might make answers to the second question irrelevant from a moral prospective. For example if we don’t have obligations to prevent famine then there is not interest in preventing famine. Singer would say they since you donated, but not enough you would be considered abad person, not as bad as murders but others For deciding to refrain, you can be held morally responsible. P1 if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of moral significance, we ought to do soP2 absolute poverty is badP3 There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable oral significanceC Therefore, we ought to prevent some absolute povertyPremise 1: ones should not prevent bad but withoutCausing anything else to comparably bad happenDoing something tat is wrong with itselfFailing to promote something goodSinger defends premise one by an analogyIf you pass by a pool and there is a drowning baby there , it is in your power to save the boy. You are obligated to save the kid and in the same way you are obligated to prevent
View Full Document
Unlocking...