The debating area is global political philosophy and is particularly about global distributive justice.

Singer's principle of Sacrifice: If it is one's power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, one ought to do it.

Richard Miller's principle of Sympathy: One's underlying disposition to respond to neediness as such ought to be sufficiently demanding that giving which would express greater underlying concern would impose a significant risk of worsening one's life, if one fulfilled all further responsibilities; and it need not be any more demanding than that.

It is said that the second principle is less demanding than the first. But as far as I can see, although the second does emphasize the extent of one's respondence to neediness, so does the first(without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance). And it's quite plausible to think of worsening one's own life as something of comparable moral significance.

Then, what are the differences between these two principles? Are there any?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.