Famine Singer Famine Singer 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 1 We need to make a distinction between two issues a What our obligations are in preventing famine b What the causes of famine are and what is the best practice for addressing these causes Answers 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 X Answers 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 a bad 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 so P2 absolute poverty is bad P3 There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable oral significance C Therefore we ought to prevent some absolute poverty Premise 1 ones should not prevent bad but without Causing anything else to comparably bad happen Doing something tat is wrong with itself Failing to promote something good Singer defends premise one by an analogy If 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 famine
View Full Document
Unlocking...