singer

singers main arguments

1. Moral Obligation to Prevent Suffering:

2. Critique of Charity vs. Duty

3. Global Responsibility

4. Collective Action and Individual Responsibility

5. Practical Implications

6. Radical Change in Lifestyle

7. Philosophical Consistency

Moral Obligation to Prevent Suffering

within our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so. regardless of distance or number of ppl who can help

Critique of Charity vs. Duty

giving to famine relief should be considered a moral obligation, not an act of charity. failing to give when one can do so without significant sacrifice is morally wrong

Global Responsibility

distance does not diminish our moral responsibility​. The suffering of people far away is as morally significant as the suffering of those nearby.

collective Action and Individual Responsibility

people are in a position to help does not lessen the individual’s obligation to act. even if others are not doing their part.

Practical Implications (demandingness of morality)

need for population control to prevent future famines, and argues that individuals should support effective means to address these issues.

Radical Change in Lifestyle

ffluent individuals should significantly alter their lifestyles, giving away substantial portions of their income to prevent suffering, up to the point where further giving would cause comparable suffering to themselves or their dependents.

Philosophical Consistency

philosophers and individuals to align their actions with their moral conclusions, advocating for a life where theory and practice are in harmony.

differnce btw duty and charity

• giving = charity (supererogatory), but not giving is morally wrong (singer thinks is flawed)

• failing to give when one can do so without significant sacrifice is morally wrong.

• Therefore, giving to famine relief is not merely a charitable act but a moral duty

• affluent individuals have a duty to give away their surplus resources to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care

argument on charity vs. duty

• people reserve moral condemnation for those who violate moral norms, such as stealing

• f people are told they must refrain from murder and give everything they do not need to famine relief, they might do neither. However, if they are told it is good to give to famine relief but not wrong not to do so, they will at least refrain from murder

• work ful time to adhere to relieve suffering

• Saving refugees now might lead to more people facing starvation in the future. singer argue still bad not to help (moral obligation)