PETER SINGER ON AFFLUENCE & GLOBAL POVERTYPHIL 102, SUMMER 2015

CHRISTINA HENDRICKS

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

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

PETER SINGER

Australian, now at Princeton University and University of Melbourne (Australia)

Clip from a documentary called Examined Life, giving an overview of Singer’s views on poverty and ethical treatment of animals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVViICWs4dM

HOW SINGER OFTEN ARGUES

Starts by setting out certain principles and assumptions that will be widely accepted

Then shows that what follows from these has important implications for how we live

Remind you of anyone?

THE BASIC ARGUMENT (FROM “FAMINE, AFFLUENCE & MORALITY” ARTICLE)

1. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad”

2a. If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, morally we should do so

2b. …without sacrificing anything morally significant…

3. Many of use can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance or anything morally significant (through donating money, e.g.)

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

IMPLICATIONS

How much to give?

Draw line btwn morally required, prohibited, and supererogatory differently We should be

“working full time to relieve great suffering” (“Famine”)

Comfortably off people 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))

RELATION TO UTILTARIANISM

Singer’s argument supposed to be acceptable to anyone, I think, not just utilitarians

But how does utilitarianism play a role in his argument?

THE ANALOGIES

Child in a pond, Dora and the homeless boy, Bob & his Bugatti

Why use both a logical argument and 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

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/

GROUPS

After discussing them further in class, what do you think of Singer’s arguments in these texts?

• If you disagree with his conclusions, how could you criticize his arguments or analogies?

• Be as specific as you can about what, exactly, you would criticize in his argument or analogies

http://is.gd/PHIL102Singer

LC POLL ON SINGER, AGAIN

Curious if the distribution of views on Singers’ arguments has changed since before we talked about them in class…