Singer, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

Who is Peter Singer?

Australian philosopher (b.1946) know for applied ethics (poverty, animal rights, and euthanasia)

What are Pete Singer’s famous works?

1. Animal Liberation

2. Practical Ethics

Singer is a good example of what ethical theory in practice?

Utilitarianism

Singer applies utilitarian theory to what three topics an how?

1. Global Poverty & Famine- argues we must give much more to those in need.

2. Animal Ethics- challenges factory farming because it causes immense suffering.

   1. Bioethics- supports euthanasia in cases where it reduces unnecessary suffering. 

True or False: Singer believes everyone interest count equally.

True, because he aligns with utilitarianism.

What is Singer’s “big move”?

He believes morality isn’t just theory— it’s a guide for urgent action in the world.

What is the context of “Famine, Affluence, and Morality?”

—written 1971, during the famine crisis in East Bengal resulting from the Bangladesh war.

—Wealthy nations could have prevented much suffering with a modest amount of aid, but didn’t.

Singer’s project in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”:

What does morality require of us in the face of famine and extreme poverty?

Where is famine present today?

Gaza and Sudan along with Haiti, South Sudan, Mali, and Yemen.

What common view does Singer challenge in the reading?

Giving to famine relief is usually seen as “charity". According to Singer, this view is completely inadequate in the face of mass suffering. Donating in these situations is a moral obligation.

What is the definition of a moral obligation?

Something we are required to do because it is the right thing; not something that’s nice or optional.

What is Singer’s simple but radical principle?

“If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”

Singer compares not donating to famine relief to what situation?

Walking past a child drowning in a pond.

Differences in the famine vs drowning case:

1. Distance- Singer emphasizes that everyone’s suffering counts the same, no matter where they are, so distance should decide whether someone helps or not.

2. Number of Potential Helpers- Famine relief has more potential helpers than a child drowning. Singer argues that the fact that many others could help does not cancel your obligation to the drowning child.

Singer’s Principle implies three things:

1. Giving to famine relief isn’t a charity, it is a duty.

2. We should give much more than we do.

   1. If you can prevent death or suffering by giving up something small, you must.

What is Singer’s conclusion?

Our moral obligations are far more demanding than people think.

How does Singer’s principle apply to the latte case?

—it is immoral to buy the latte

—the latte is not of “comparable moral importance” to saving a life

—its not morally acceptable to spend money on luxuries instead of donating

—this illustrates his radical claim that our everyday spending habits can be wrong if they mean a failure to prevent suffering

What are the two objections to Singer’s principle?

1. Too Demanding For Ordinary People- if morality demands too much, people will just give up. We need a moral code that’s realistic for ordinary people.

2. Should We Work Full-Time for Charity- If Singer is right, shouldn’t we all quit our jobs, stop having fun, and spend all hours trying to prevent misery? That sounds impossible.

What is Singer’s response to the Too Demanding For Ordinary People critique?

—what people see as possible depends of social expectations, so if more people viewed giving as a duty, than it would become normal.

—its unlikely that urging people to do more will cause society to collapse.

—even if its hard, millions of lives are at stake, so its worth pushing people further.

What is Singer’s response to the “Should We Work Full-Time For Charity?” critique?

—his principle only applies when you can stop something bad without sacrificing something equally serious.

—working yourself to exhaustion would make you less effective so its not required

—but we still have to do more than we are currently doing