How Should We Treat Others?

Peter Singer

influential + controversial living philosopher, comtemporary utilitarian

singer on famine

argued for moral obligation to aid those suffering from poverty and starvation, particularly through effective altruism.

singer on famine: proximity

distance is not relevant, if we are able to help someone near that is justifiable but that does not mean we ought to help him rather than another who is farther away.

singer on famine: drowning child

even if you are alone or one of many, your obligation does not disappear even if others could help
- whether you are the closest person or one among many, if you can help, you still should

singer on famine: duty and chairity

charity usually thought as superogatory, singer believes you are not sacrificing anything morally comparable so donating is not generous but something you are obligated to do (donating to famine relief should be treated like a duty (like not harming people), not like optional kindness.)

singer on famine: ordinary rejection

objection: too drastic, we do not condemn those who indulge rather than give
response: way people judge is irrelevant, judgements are not morally justified

singer on famine: demandingness objection

objection: we ought to be working much harder to relieve suffering if singer correct
response: this is a criticism of current standards, very few are likely to do what we ought but doesn’t change the fact we ought to
counter: do i have to give to the point where I am not much better off than those iI’m helping? (reduction to marginal utility)
response: singer says yes but moderate version says no

singer on famine: practicality objection

objection: is money really the best way? govs should take care of this is it effective? foreign aid can be corruptive
response: relying solely on government action can delay individual responsibility, and private donations can be more efficient in addressing immediate needs. + be careful about how you donate.

o’neill kantian famine relief

in famine situations, Kantian moral theory requires unambiguously that we do no injustice

o’neill kantian famine relief: beneficience

famine relief stands high among duties of beneficience, extreme poverty + hunger leaves people unable to pursue any of their ends, so we have stronger responsibility to develop others’ capacity to purse their ends than we do support those who are already able.

o’neill kantian famine relief: beneficence & justice

beneficence: help others achieve their ends
justice: never use someone as a mere means

thomson’s trolley problem

thought experiment about whether it is morally permissible to cause harm to prevent greater harm; tests ideas about consequences vs duties and moral difference between killing and letting die

thomson’s trolley problem: switch

runaway trolley will kill 5 people unless you pull a lever that diverts it onto another track where it will kill 1 person.

thomson’s trolley problem: transplant

would it be okay to kill one person to use their organs to save 5?

thomson’s trolley problem: bystander

The trolley driver is asleep, you are standing next to the lever. Is it morally permissible to flip the switch?

thomson’s trolley problem: loop

If the tracks are a loop, with 5 on one side and 1 on the other, you would kill the 1 first, the trolley would stop and save the 5. If the 1 was not there, all 5 would die.

thomson’s trolley problem: footbridge

There is a footbridge over the track, you see the trolley heading towards the 5 people. You could push a “larger gentleman” in front of the trolley to stop it, is this moral?

solution: pushing man wrong because in it of itself violates someones rights, flipping switch does not.

thomson’s trolley problem: bystander versus transplant

1. killing one is worse than letting five die

2. killing five is worse than killing one

thomson’s trolley problem: kantian solution

transplant: surgeon using people as mere means, bystander isn’t

nagel’s moral luck: kantian morality and luck

• is a concept where moral judgment is separated from factors beyond an individual's control, asserting that moral responsibility should not depend on luck.

nagel’s moral luck: judgement

• is it correct to judge someone based on something out of their control?

  • ie. forgot to attach kid’s car seat properly

    • no accident, still did something wrong but no consequences

    • accident out of control, still did something terrible

nagel’s moral luck: control principle

people cannot be morally assessed for something that is not their fault or due to factors out of their control

nagel’s moral luck: causal versus moral responsibility

• refers to the distinction between being held accountable for actions directly influenced by luck versus those that are morally significant regardless of luck as you are a moral agent

nagel’s moral luck

luck pervades in our lives in ways that matter morally, yet we often judge individuals based on outcomes beyond their control. (which could also wipe out a lot of moral responsibility)

nagel’s moral luck: resultant luck

luck in the way things turn out

nagel’s moral luck: circumstancial luck

luck found in circumstances determined by factors outside of our control

nagel’s moral luck: constitutive luck

luck in who one is, what traits, and dispositions one has (genetics out of our control)

nagel’s moral luck: causal luck

efers to the luck involved in how one's actions are impacted by external events, leading to outcomes that are shaped by uncontrollable factors (and cannot hold them accountable for)

nagel’s moral luck: problem with moral luck

pervasive because while we can’t judge people for what they can’t control, there are few things that are within a person’s control