Obligations to Starving People Peter Singer Famine Affluence

Obligations to Starving People Peter Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Some Things You Should Know • Why do we focus on the premise we called “CMI”? • Why can Singer be viewed as a utilitarian? • What does Singer mean “we must redraw the line between duty and charity”? • Why does Singer quote Aquinas? How does Singer both agree and disagree with Aquinas?

Some Things to Know • What is controversial in Singer’s saying we are obligated not to avoid causing harm but also to prevent bad from happening? • How much does Singer think we should all be sacrificing? • Why does Singer’s position not imply that we should all immediately reduce ourselves to poverty?

The Basic Argument • Suffering and death from lack of food, clothing, and medical care bad. • If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought to do so. (“CMI”) • Therefore, if it is in our power to prevent suffering and death. . . without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought to do so.

The strong (“real”) principle and the more moderate (“weaker) version • (CMI) If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought to do so. • (Weaker) If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of moral importance, we ought to do so.

“Without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance” • Without causing anything else comparably bad to happen • Failing to promote a moral good comparable to the bad we can prevent • “Doing something that is wrong in itself” -1000 +1000 I -1000

Three Kinds of Obligations Do what is good Create plus points Prevent what is bad Prevent minus points Refrain from causing harm Not create minus points Singer: “[My CMI principle] requires only to prevent what is bad and not to promote what is good. ”

Two controversial elements of CMI • Takes no account of proximity of distance • Doesn’t distinguish between when you are the only one who can help and when many others can help.

Duty and “charity” Singer: we must “redraw the line between duty and charity. ” • Duty or moral obligation: what one should do. If free choice, morally praiseworthy if you do, morally blameworthy if you don’t. • Supererogatory action (Singer’s “charity”) If free choice, morally praiseworthy if you do, but not morally blameworthy if you don’t.

Critic: “It’s too drastic a revision of our moral scheme” Singer: [the critic is saying that] people do not ordinarily judge in the way I have suggested they should. “But given that I did not set out to present a morally neutral description of the way people make moral judgments, the way people do in fact judge has nothing to do with the validity of my [ethical] conclusion. My conclusion follows from the principle [CMI premise] which I advanced earlier, and unless that principle is rejected or the argument shown to be unsound, I think the conclusion must stand, however strange it appears. ” [my emphasis]

Critic: “But there must be something wrong somewhere” Singer: “I would like to quote a passage from a writer not normally thought of as a way-out radical, Thomas Aquinas: “. . . according to the natural order instituted by divide providence, material goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs. . . Whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance. ”

Arthur’s Criticism of Singer Entitlements and “Realistic Morality”

Singer’s “Greater Moral Evil” Rule • CMI: “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do so. • Arthur calls this the “greater moral evil rule. ” We are entitled to keep our earnings only if there is no way to use them to prevent a greater evil.

Arthur: This Is “One Part of Morality” • Underlying idea: “Like amounts of suffering or happiness are of equal importance, regardless of who is experiencing them. ” • Arthur: This is one important part of ethics. • But it leaves out other parts. . .

Entitlements • Singer’s principle ignores an important part of morality: entitlements – Rights – Desert • Rights: we have a right to our bodies even when giving up the right would relieve great suffering or create happiness.

Rights are Not Absolute • Don’t oversimplify Arthur. Just as he claims CMI (greater moral evil) rule alone is insufficient, he also claims rights/desert alone not enough. • Sometimes we are morally obligated to give up our rights, even to our bodies, but not “when the cost to us is substantial. ”

Desert • One “entitlement” is rights. The other is desert: some people deserve benefits (or punishments) not because of future consequences but because of past actions. • Example of industrious and lazy farmer. Even if better consequences by giving money to lazy farmer, the industrious farmer may deserve to keep greater wealth.

Like Rights, Desert Not Absolute • Arthur: “Perhaps [the hard-working farmer’s] deserving the product of his labor is outweighed by the greater need of his lazy neighbor, or perhaps it isn’t. ” • Arthur: both important: CMI and entitlements. • Arthur a nonconsequentialist, but not absolute rights. Prima facie rights and deserts.

Our “Commonly Shared Morality” • Arthur: “our commonly shared morality requires that we ignore neither consequences nor entitlements. ” (p. 775) • But is our “commonly shared morality” the right one? Arthur himself: “unless we are moral relativists, the mere fact that entitlements are an important part of our moral code does not in itself justify such a role [my emphasis]. ”

“Commonly Shared Morality” • Arthur: “Singer. . . can perhaps best be seen as a moral reformer advocating the rejection of rules which provide for distribution according to rights and desert. ” [YES!] • Arthur: at one time our “commonly shared morality” allowed slavery, so clearly it’s not always correct. • So why should we think it (rather than Singer) is correct now?

Arthur on Requirements of a Moral Code • It must be practical. • It must be able to gain the support of almost everyone. • It must not assume people are better than they are. (from p. 776)

Idealistic vs Realistic Morality • Should morality establish the standards we should strive for? (Idealistic) • Arthur’s “realistic” or “practical” morality may be suitable for those recommending policies but not for pure moral philosophers. • What should be the role of moral thinkers and philosophers? • Maybe important to distinguish between personal morality and social policy.

What About the Rights of the Poor? • OK, imagine Arthur is correct about rights and entitlements. What about the rights of the poor? Aren’t they even more important? • Recall Aquinas (quoted by Singer, p. 416): “whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, as a matter of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance. ” [my emphasis]

Singer’s “Greater Moral Evil” Rule • CMI: “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do so. • Arthur calls this the “greater moral evil rule. ” We are entitled to keep our earnings only if there is no way to use them to prevent a greater evil.

Arthur: This Is “One Part of Morality” • Underlying idea: “Like amounts of suffering or happiness are of equal importance, regardless of who is experiencing them. ” • Arthur: This is one important part of ethics. • But it leaves out other parts. . .

Entitlements • Singer’s principle ignores an important part of morality: entitlements – Rights – Desert • Rights: we have a right to our bodies even when giving up the right would relieve great suffering or create happiness.

Rights are Not Absolute • Don’t oversimplify Arthur. Just as he claims CMI (greater moral evil) rule alone is insufficient, he also claims rights/desert alone not enough. • Sometimes we are morally obligated to give up our rights, even to our bodies, but not “when the cost to us is substantial. ”

Desert • One “entitlement” is rights. The other is desert: some people deserve benefits (or punishments) not because of future consequences but because of past actions. • Example of industrious and lazy farmer. Even if better consequences by giving money to lazy farmer, the industrious farmer may deserve to keep greater wealth.

Like Rights, Desert Not Absolute • Arthur: “Perhaps [the hard-working farmer’s] deserving the product of his labor is outweighed by the greater need of his lazy neighbor, or perhaps it isn’t. ” • Arthur: both important: CMI and entitlements. • Arthur a nonconsequentialist, but not absolute rights. Prima facie rights and deserts.

Our “Commonly Shared Morality” • Arthur: “our commonly shared morality requires that we ignore neither consequences nor entitlements. ” (p. 775) • But is our “commonly shared morality” the right one? Arthur himself: “unless we are moral relativists, the mere fact that entitlements are an important part of our moral code does not in itself justify such a role [my emphasis]. ”

“Commonly Shared Morality” • Arthur: “Singer. . . can perhaps best be seen as a moral reformer advocating the rejection of rules which provide for distribution according to rights and desert. ” [YES!] • Arthur: at one time our “commonly shared morality” allowed slavery, so clearly it’s not always correct. • So why should we think it (rather than Singer) is correct now?

Arthur on Requirements of a Moral Code • It must be practical. • It must be able to gain the support of almost everyone. • It must not assume people are better than they are. (from p. 776)

Idealistic vs Realistic Morality • Should morality establish the standards we should strive for? (Idealistic) • Arthur’s “realistic” or “practical” morality may be suitable for those recommending policies but not for pure moral philosophers. • What should be the role of moral thinkers and philosophers? • Maybe important to distinguish between personal morality and social policy.

What About the Rights of the Poor? • OK, imagine Arthur is correct about rights and entitlements. What about the rights of the poor? Aren’t they even more important? • Recall Aquinas (quoted by Singer, p. 416): “whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, as a matter of natural right, to the poor for their sustenance. ” [my emphasis]

Negative and Positive Rights • If someone has a right, someone else has an obligation? To do what? • To respect the right. • Negative rights imply negative obligations; positive rights imply positive obligations. • A negative obligation is an obligation NOT to do something; a positive obligation requires doing something.

Negative and Positive Rights • What are some examples of negative rights? • Remember, these can be respected by doing nothing. • What are some examples of positive rights? • Are there positive rights? Aquinas claims giving to the poor is a natural right that the poor have.

Moral Rights and Correlative Moral Obligations - Negative rights Negative obligation Duty to refrain from torturing Right not to be tortured Duty to refrain from stealing Right to property Who has this obligation? Duty = Obligation

Moral Rights and Correlative Moral Duties - Positive right Positive obligation Right to adequate medical care Duty to provide these Right to enough food to eat Who has this obligation? Right to decent education Duty = Obligation

Arthur on Rights • Disagreeing with Aquinas, Arthur claims that the only natural rights we have just because we are human beings are negative rights. • Arthur: positive rights come about only through contracts or commitments. • This is a crucial debate in understanding issues of economic justice in our own country.