Point of marginal utility and its significance to Singer’s argument/Singer’s critique of the charity duty distinction

Negative duties

Harm, steal, etc, dont do these things then youre a morally good person

Positive duties

aid/help 

If you don’t aid in times of need, then you should feel guilty 

Claim 1:

Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad

Claim 2:

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

Duty

obligations, morally required actions

“what we must do” (469 RM)

-eg norms against killing, coercion, deception, theft (respect for other’s rights)

Charity

actions that would be morally good but not obligatory

-good although not required (469 RM)

-eg giving aid

Singer’s critique of the charity duty distinction

When we have the ability to prevent significant suffering without sacrificing something of comparable importance, helping others in need becomes a moral duty, not just an act of charity.

Demandingness 

1. Purity/clarity distinction is dissolved 

2. How much should we give? To the point of marginal utility, I am trying to help 

the point of marginal utility

– the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself of my dependents as those);