Exam 2: Applied Ethics

Applied Ethics: Giving to Charity, Eating Meat, Having Children

What is Applied Ethics?

Determining what is right and wrong in particular circumstances.

What percentage of the world’s population lives on under $1.50 a day?

20% of the population

Half a million children die every year from what?

Dehydration from unsafe water and sanitation

What is the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility?

The first unit of consumption of a good produces more utility (enjoyment) than each subsequent unit.

What does MacAskill mean as The 100X Multiplier?

If you gave one dollar to the poorest, it would be 100 times more effective for them compared to you.

What is the commonsense view of charity?

It is morally good but not morally required.

Singer’s Principle of Moral Obligation

If you can likely prevent something bad without sacrificing anything nearly as important, then you are morally obligated to do so.

Moral Principle of the Shallow Pond

1. You can prevent the child from drowning.

2. It would require you getting your nice clothing wet and ruined.

3. You are then morally obligated to save the child because your clothes are not nearly as important as a child’s life.

Difference between Singer’s principle and Utilitarianism?

Singer argues the difference between gain and sacrifice has to be substantial, unlike a utilitarian who would say if any difference could make something better, you must do it.

Examples of what Singer thinks we can commonly prevent?

Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.

What is excess wealth?

Money you spend on trivial things such as desserts, movies, coffee, and other things that you don’t need but enjoy.

State Singer’s Argument

1. If you can likely prevent something bad without sacrificing something nearly as important, you are morally obligated to do so.

2. Donating excess wealth to effective charities is likely to prevent something bad.

3. Donating excess wealth to effective charities instead of spending it does not sacrifice anything nearly as important such as basic food, shelter, and medical care.

4. Therefore, you’re morally obligated to donate excess wealth to effective charities instead of spending it.

When is it acceptable, to Singer, to spend money on yourself?

1. On things that are as important as food, shelter, and health care.

2. Things which are nearly as important.

Can you ever spend money on fun things according to Singer?

Yes. If you forgo spending money on anything fun, that is a substantial sacrifice you are making. It may be a detriment to your life to never enjoy anything. We should live more simply, but not have barren lives.

Objections to Peter Singer’s Charity Argument and reasons they’re wrong:

1. The government already gives a lot: Not true, the USA gives less than 1% of its budget to foreign aid.

2. Giving breeds dependency: No, it actually helps people move out of worse situations.

3. Giving charity results in overpopulation: No, studies have found the opposite occurs as contraception is used and need for more kids diminish.

4. People have the moral right to their money: Don’t conflate right with obligation.

5. What if everyone donated: It won’t happen and if it did, the burden on individuals to give would be lessened.

Why are psychological reasons not to donate not good enough for Singer?

These reasons influence how we behave but they don’t tell us how we should behave.

Two things to consider about Moral Arguments

1. People do change their opinions and actions because of arguments.

2. If you never open yourself up to the possibility of change, you aren’t as a moral agent acting in good faith.

What is Moral Standing?

What something has when taking it’s interests (things going well or badly for it) into account during moral consideration.

Two flawed reasons to consider things that lack moral standing?

1. Not considering it can upset a person who has moral standing. But suppose this thing not considered belongs to a terrorist?

2. It indicates bad character and will hurt humans. But if there is nothing wrong with not considering something of no moral standing, why would it indicate anything otherwise?

Why is having a Soul not a good indicator of moral standing?

If only human beings have souls, what about a soul actually gives humans moral standing?

Why does capacity for Sophisticated Rational thought not give moral standing?

If it did, how would we treat or view people with disabilities?

Why does Speciesism not determine moral standing?

You need to justify if it is because is gives us certain capacities (which may lack in some) or if it is significant in itself. Basing it on our DNA seems morally irrelevant.

Why cant Biocentrism determine moral standing?

Plants, bacteria, and mold are still alive but have no standing because we have no obligations to them or them to us.

Does Sentientism determine moral standing?

Yes, because it would include even humans with limited capacities and animals.

Argument for Species Overlap

1. Human beings have moral standing, including the developmentally disabled, babies, etc.

2. What gives these humans moral standing is some shared capacity they have.

3. But any capacity that is shared by humans is also shared by animals.

4. Therefore, animals likewise have moral standing.

Three flawed common arguments for Eating Meat

1. People have always eaten meat. But people have also always been racist. History does not indicate morality.

2. Eating meat is necessary. But people can live without eating meat (vegetarians) and are just as healthy.

3. Eating meat is natural. Yes it is, but there is no moral significance. Just because we can, doesn’t automatically mean we should.

What justifications does Appiah argue for that raise concern?

People justify by invoking tradition, human nature, or necessity.

What is factory farming?

An intensive system of raising animals for agricultural purposes. These farms aim to produce most meat at the lowest cost.

Norcross’s Argument of Factory Farmed Meat

1. It’s morally wrong to buy and eat Chocolate Mousse because it entails animals to suffer.

2. There is no moral difference between buying and eating Chocolate Mousse and buying and eating factory farmed meat.

3. There, its morally wrong to buy and eat factory farmed meat.

If Norcross is right, it entails…

Gustatory pleasure of humans does not justify eating meat.

Objections to Norcross’s Argument

1. Premise 1 relies on bias.

2. Premise 1 implies my individual action can change the market, but the market doesn’t respond to individual actions.

3. Premise 2 assumes puppies are equally valuable as farm animals.

Being valued vs. valuing something

Just because we value something doesn’t mean its valuable. It works the other way as well.

What, according to Rulli, is the difference between biological and adopted families?

None. Adopting creates families that are just as real as biological families.

Why is adoption a moral issue?

There are millions of children worldwide whose basic needs aren’t being met and institutional care often isn’t good. Being so, you could help a kid immensely by adopting.

Is Rulli’s stance on adoption similar to Singer’s on charity?

Yes. We have a duty to help the children especially when cost is minimal. We have a duty to adopt so long as other duties aren’t more important.

What can outweigh our duties to adopt?

Personal projects: A project that has a central significance in the moral agent’s life.

Potenial overrides for Adoption prima facie duty?

1. Money: Some just don’t have the resource to support children.

2. Challenges: Some are not equip with skills to help children.

But Rulli wants us to be honest with ourselves. Are these good enough reasons not to help for specifically us?

What two criteria are needed for a preference to override our duty to children?

1. The preference must be strong as a personal project.

2. The preference itself must be morally acceptable.

Which preference do not override our duty to adopt children?

1. Lack of physically resemblance: Trivial preference.

2. Psychological Resemblance: If its a strong preference, its morally objectionable. It is inflexible and puts pressure on the child, not you.

3. Partiality towards genetic similarity: Morally problematic.

4. Transcending your own life: Adopted children can also carry on our legacy!

5. Creating a child:Creating a child is not a project, raising one is. You can just raise an adopted kid.

Summarize Rulli’s Argument

1. We have a prima facie duty to adopt children in need of loving parents - a critical good life.

2. Prima facie duties to secure critical life goods can only be overridden by important life projects.

3. C1: Therefore, the prima facie duty to adopt can only be overridden by an important life project.

4. Preferring a genetically-related child is not an important life project - except in some cases wanting to experience pregnancy.

5. C2: Therefore, the prima facie duty to adopt is not overridden by preffering a genetically-related child - except in some cases of wanting to experience pregnancy.

What is Positive Moral Obligation according to Reider?

A moral obligation to do something rather than not do something.

What is Reider’s hesitation towards moral obligation?

Even if all the reasons clearly seem to support a particular action, we still seem reluctant to say that the person is obligated to do so. So what is it that makes some obligated to do something?

Reider’s argument against moral obligation of Adoption

1. Having a child, either by procreation or adoption, is a radically personal and intimate action.

2. The concept of positive moral obligation does not apply to radical personal and intimate actions.

3. Therefore, the concept of positive moral obligation does not apply to procreation and adoption - there is not moral duty to adopt.

Are the arguments of Singer, Norcross, and Rulli too demanding?

Reider would say no. Sometimes doing the right thing is hard.