Transcript right

Obligations to Starving People
Peter Singer,
Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Some Things You Should Know
• Why do we focus on the premise we called
“CMI”?
• Why can Singer be viewed as a utilitarian?
• What does Singer mean “we must redraw the
line between duty and charity”?
• Why does Singer quote Aquinas? How does
Singer both agree and disagree with
Aquinas?
Some Things to Know
• What is controversial in Singer’s saying we are
obligated not to avoid causing harm but also to
prevent bad from happening?
• How much does Singer think we should all be
sacrificing?
• Why does Singer’s position not imply that we
should all immediately reduce ourselves to
poverty?
The Basic Argument
• Suffering and death from lack of food, clothing,
and medical care are bad.
• If it is in our power to prevent something bad
from happening without thereby sacrificing
something of comparable moral importance,
we ought to do so. (“CMI”)
• Therefore, if it is in our power to prevent suffering
and death...without sacrificing something of
comparable moral importance, we ought to do so.
The strong (“real”) principle and the
more moderate (“weaker) version
• (CMI) If it is in our power to prevent
something bad from happening without
sacrificing something of comparable
moral importance, we ought to do so.
• (Weaker) If it is in our power to prevent
something very bad from happening
without sacrificing anything of moral
importance, we ought to do so.
“Without sacrificing anything of
comparable moral importance”
• Without causing anything else comparably bad to
happen
• Failing to promote a moral good comparable to the
bad we can prevent
• “Doing something that is wrong in itself”
-1000 +1000
I
-1000
Three Kinds of Obligations
Do what is good
Create plus points
Prevent what is bad
Prevent minus points
Refrain from causing
harm
Not create minus points
Singer: “[My CMI principle] requires only to prevent
what is bad and not to promote what is good.”
Two controversial elements
of CMI
• Takes no account of proximity of distance
• Doesn’t distinguish between when you are
the only one who can help and when many
others can help.
Duty and “charity”
Singer: we must “redraw the line between duty and
charity.”
• Duty or moral obligation: what one should do. If free
choice, morally praiseworthy if you do, morally
blameworthy if you don’t.
• Supererogatory action (Singer’s “charity”)
If free choice, morally praiseworthy if you do, but not
morally blameworthy if you don’t.
Critic: “It’s too drastic a
revision of our moral scheme”
Singer: [the critic is saying that] people do not ordinarily
judge in the way I have suggested they should.
“But given that I did not set out to present a morally neutral
description of the way people make moral judgments, the
way people do in fact judge has nothing to do with the
validity of my [ethical] conclusion. My conclusion follows
from the principle [CMI premise] which I advanced earlier,
and unless that principle is rejected or the argument shown to
be unsound, I think the conclusion must stand, however
strange it appears.” [my emphasis]
Critic: “But there must be
something wrong somewhere”
Singer: “I would like to quote a passage from
a writer not normally thought of as a wayout radical, Thomas Aquinas:
“...according to the natural order instituted by
divide providence, material goods are
provided for the satisfaction of human
needs...Whatever a man has in
superabundance is owed, of natural right, to
the poor for their sustenance.”
Arthur’s Criticism of Singer
Entitlements and “Realistic Morality”
Singer’s “Greater Moral Evil” Rule
• CMI: “If it is in our power to prevent
something bad from happening without
thereby sacrificing something of
comparable moral importance, we ought,
morally, to do so.
• Arthur calls this the “greater moral evil
rule.” We are entitled to keep our earnings
only if there is no way to use them to
prevent a greater evil.
Arthur: This Is “One Part of Morality”
• Underlying idea: “Like amounts of
suffering or happiness are of equal
importance, regardless of who is
experiencing them.”
• Arthur: This is one important part of ethics.
• But it leaves out other parts...
Entitlements
• Singer’s principle ignores an important part
of morality: entitlements
– Rights
– Desert
• Rights: we have a right to our bodies even
when giving up the right would relieve great
suffering or create happiness.
Rights are Not Absolute
• Don’t oversimplify Arthur. Just as he
claims CMI (greater moral evil) rule alone
is insufficient, he also claims rights/desert
alone not enough.
• Sometimes we are morally obligated to give
up our rights, even to our bodies, but not
“when the cost to us is substantial.”
Desert
• One “entitlement” is rights. The other is desert:
some people deserve benefits (or punishments)
not because of future consequences but because of
past actions.
• Example of industrious and lazy farmer. Even if
better consequences by giving money to lazy
farmer, the industrious farmer may deserve to
keep greater wealth.
Like Rights, Desert Not Absolute
• Arthur: “Perhaps [the hard-working
farmer’s] deserving the product of his labor
is outweighed by the greater need of his
lazy neighbor, or perhaps it isn’t.”
• Arthur: both important: CMI and
entitlements.
• Arthur a nonconsequentialist, but not
absolute rights. Prima facie rights and
deserts.
Our “Commonly Shared
Morality”
• Arthur: “our commonly shared morality
requires that we ignore neither
consequences nor entitlements.” (p. 775)
• But is our “commonly shared morality” the
right one? Arthur himself: “unless we are
moral relativists, the mere fact that
entitlements are an important part of our
moral code does not in itself justify such a
role [my emphasis].”
“Commonly Shared Morality”
• Arthur: “Singer...can perhaps best be seen
as a moral reformer advocating the rejection
of rules which provide for distribution
according to rights and desert.” [YES!]
• Arthur: at one time our “commonly shared
morality” allowed slavery, so clearly it’s
not always correct.
• So why should we think it (rather than
Singer) is correct now?
Arthur on Requirements of a
Moral Code
• It must be practical.
• It must be able to gain the support of almost
everyone.
• It must not assume people are better than
they are.
(from p. 776)
Idealistic vs Realistic Morality
• Should morality establish the standards we should
strive for? (Idealistic)
• Arthur’s “realistic” or “practical” morality may
be suitable for those recommending policies but
not for pure moral philosophers.
• What should be the role of moral thinkers and
philosophers?
• Maybe important to distinguish between personal
morality and social policy.
What About the Rights of the
Poor?
• OK, imagine Arthur is correct about rights
and entitlements. What about the rights of
the poor? Aren’t they even more important?
• Recall Aquinas (quoted by Singer, p. 416):
“whatever a man has in superabundance is
owed, as a matter of natural right, to the
poor for their sustenance.” [my emphasis]
Singer’s “Greater Moral Evil” Rule
• CMI: “If it is in our power to prevent
something bad from happening without
thereby sacrificing something of
comparable moral importance, we ought,
morally, to do so.
• Arthur calls this the “greater moral evil
rule.” We are entitled to keep our earnings
only if there is no way to use them to
prevent a greater evil.
Arthur: This Is “One Part of Morality”
• Underlying idea: “Like amounts of
suffering or happiness are of equal
importance, regardless of who is
experiencing them.”
• Arthur: This is one important part of ethics.
• But it leaves out other parts...
Entitlements
• Singer’s principle ignores an important part
of morality: entitlements
– Rights
– Desert
• Rights: we have a right to our bodies even
when giving up the right would relieve great
suffering or create happiness.
Rights are Not Absolute
• Don’t oversimplify Arthur. Just as he
claims CMI (greater moral evil) rule alone
is insufficient, he also claims rights/desert
alone not enough.
• Sometimes we are morally obligated to give
up our rights, even to our bodies, but not
“when the cost to us is substantial.”
Desert
• One “entitlement” is rights. The other is desert:
some people deserve benefits (or punishments)
not because of future consequences but because of
past actions.
• Example of industrious and lazy farmer. Even if
better consequences by giving money to lazy
farmer, the industrious farmer may deserve to
keep greater wealth.
Like Rights, Desert Not Absolute
• Arthur: “Perhaps [the hard-working
farmer’s] deserving the product of his labor
is outweighed by the greater need of his
lazy neighbor, or perhaps it isn’t.”
• Arthur: both important: CMI and
entitlements.
• Arthur a nonconsequentialist, but not
absolute rights. Prima facie rights and
deserts.
Our “Commonly Shared
Morality”
• Arthur: “our commonly shared morality
requires that we ignore neither
consequences nor entitlements.” (p. 775)
• But is our “commonly shared morality” the
right one? Arthur himself: “unless we are
moral relativists, the mere fact that
entitlements are an important part of our
moral code does not in itself justify such a
role [my emphasis].”
“Commonly Shared Morality”
• Arthur: “Singer...can perhaps best be seen
as a moral reformer advocating the rejection
of rules which provide for distribution
according to rights and desert.” [YES!]
• Arthur: at one time our “commonly shared
morality” allowed slavery, so clearly it’s
not always correct.
• So why should we think it (rather than
Singer) is correct now?
Arthur on Requirements of a
Moral Code
• It must be practical.
• It must be able to gain the support of almost
everyone.
• It must not assume people are better than
they are.
(from p. 776)
Idealistic vs Realistic Morality
• Should morality establish the standards we should
strive for? (Idealistic)
• Arthur’s “realistic” or “practical” morality may
be suitable for those recommending policies but
not for pure moral philosophers.
• What should be the role of moral thinkers and
philosophers?
• Maybe important to distinguish between personal
morality and social policy.
What About the Rights of the
Poor?
• OK, imagine Arthur is correct about rights
and entitlements. What about the rights of
the poor? Aren’t they even more important?
• Recall Aquinas (quoted by Singer, p. 416):
“whatever a man has in superabundance is
owed, as a matter of natural right, to the
poor for their sustenance.” [my emphasis]
Negative and Positive Rights
• If someone has a right, someone else has an
obligation? To do what?
• To respect the right.
• Negative rights imply negative obligations;
positive rights imply positive obligations.
• A negative obligation is an obligation NOT
to do something; a positive obligation
requires doing something.
Negative and Positive Rights
• What are some examples of negative rights?
• Remember, these can be respected by doing
nothing.
• What are some examples of positive rights?
• Are there positive rights? Aquinas claims
giving to the poor is a natural right that the
poor have. 
Moral Rights and Correlative
Moral Obligations - Negative
Negative rights
Negative obligation
Duty to refrain from torturing
Right not to be tortured
Duty to refrain from stealing
Right to property
Who has this obligation?
Duty = Obligation
Moral Rights and Correlative
Moral Duties - Positive
Positive right
Positive obligation
Right to adequate medical
care
Duty to provide these
Right to enough food to eat
Who has this obligation?
Right to decent education
Duty = Obligation
Arthur on Rights
• Disagreeing with Aquinas, Arthur claims
that the only natural rights we have just
because we are human beings are negative
rights.
• Arthur: positive rights come about only
through contracts or commitments.
• This is a crucial debate in understanding
issues of economic justice in our own
country.