Transcript Arthur`s Criticism of Singer

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]
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
Right not to be tortured
Right to property
Duty to refrain from torturing
Duty to refrain from stealing
Who has this obligation?
Duty = Obligation
Moral Rights and Correlative
Moral Duties - Positive
Positive right
Positive obligation
Right to adequate medical
care
Right to enough food to eat
Right to decent education
Duty to provide these
Who has this obligation?
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.
