P. Singer's Argument for an Obligation to Assist
the Absolutely Poor:
Relative
poverty =df Poverty relative to the
standards of wealth in a particular society.
Absolute
poverty =df Poverty by any standard.
R. McNamara's description: "a condition
of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid
surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy as to be beneath
any reasonable definition of human decency."
1. If a person can prevent something bad
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, she/he ought to
do so.
2. Absolute poverty is bad (very bad).
3. There is some absolute poverty person P
can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.
__________
4. (conclusion) Person P ought to prevent
some absolute poverty.
EXERCISE: Replace the variable “person P”
with names of individuals (including yours), and of groups and institutions
(“US government” for instance), and reconsider the question of cogency.
Singer: The truth that governments of developed countries should provide much more aid
to people in squalor in underdeveloped countries does not reduce the obligation
of individuals to give.
Singer: An alternative moral demand in consideration
of the long term is: “Help reduce population” (and thus famine and squalor over
the long run).
Ethical universalism and particularism. Is Singer right to hold that from a
moral point of view the distance of people in squalor from those capable of
helping them is irrelevant?
Confucian middle ground (review W. D. Ross’s “pluralist’’ system of prima facie duties we discussed
earlier).
Key questions for us: Is there a duty of “beneficence”
(jen)? What about “likeness to self” and the “Golden Rule”? What would be required according to an
ethics of ahimsa, “non-injury”?
etc.
The question of the extent of the duty of beneficence:
“How much should I give?”
If Singer’s universalism commits one to the answer
“One should give to the point of marginal utility” (or anything close to that
standard), would the radicalness (according to common social standards) of that
conclusion show that his universalism is wrong?
Questions of effectiveness. Is skepticism here a moral failure?
Reflection: Is a capable person’s failing to help
relieve absolute poverty the “moral equivalent of murder” (as Singer has in
other venues asserted)?
Some obvious differences
><------->< Singer’s responses
|
1. Lack of identifiable victim |
A manufacturer of contaminated tin, e.g.,
would be held responsible despite lack of identifiable victims |
|
2. Lack of certainty about effectiveness |
Laws against speeding in pedestrian crossings
may be ineffective but should nonetheless not be repealed |
|
3. No responsibility |
Rights are not all there is to morality |
|
4. Different motivation |
Indifference can be morally reprehensible |
|
5. Different (and too high an) ethical standard
|
Sainthood or nothing is a false dilemma |