Hot answers tagged

6

Singer already addresses the issue, albeit indirectly: it follows that I and everyone else in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible, that is, at least up to the point at which by giving more one would begin to cause serious suffering for oneself and one's dependents - perhaps even beyond this point to the point of marginal utility, at ...


4

Therefore, giving money to the Nth child is less morally pressing or important (and in some cases, impossible) than giving money to the Mth child, if M < N. What's your justification for this step? I think Singer would argue that giving money to the Nth child is just as morally pressing and important, up until the point where you can no longer give any ...


2

I am not aware of canonical answers, but a few strong ones spring to mind (Springer's comments not among them): (1) If we have any obligation to future generations at all, making them non-existent is, if we are wrong that we should do so, the biggest and most permanent mistake that it is possible to make. Things would have to be so radically different from ...


2

As a Muslim (and a theist student of philosophy after all), I recall an interesting Quranic verse which suggests something very similar but with an additional qualifier: "You will never attain goodness until you give out in charity from things you like!" And I'm gonna take this as the starting point of a rather long metaphysical contemplation of the question!...


2

Peter Singer identifies wrong with pain. It's not particularly clear that plants experience anything similar to what we normally call "pain" whereas it seems like many types of animals do experience identifiably similar pain. So it's discriminating based on what he takes to be the relevant feature of morality: pain. And this is linked to some form of ...


1

In place of my own interests, I now have to take into account the interests of all those affected by my decision. This requires me to weigh up all these interests and adopt the course of action most likely to maximize the interests of those affected. Thus at least at some level [in very unusual circumstances] in my moral reasoning I must choose the ...


1

I think you understood Singer's argument wrong, or maybe the argument looks different than in his other books. The pond analogy as I know it has nothing to do with buying clothes or the number of actually starving children. Suppose you see a child drowning in a relatively small pond. There's no one else but you, and you can swim. The "costs" of saving the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible