PHIL 1401 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Supererogation
10/9/17
Famine, Affluence, and Morality
Empirical Information
-extreme poverty/absolute poverty
-the extremely poor have to contend with hunger, malnutrition, widespread disease, high
infant morality, fear and poverty
-over a billion people live in extreme poverty
-In 2013, 10.7% of the world population lived on less than $1.90 a day
Bad Consequences of Extreme Poverty
-significantly life-shortening
-involves great suffering and pain from disease and hunger
-undermines the dignity and decency of persons
Premises
1) Suffering and/or death from extreme poverty are (very) bad.
2) If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral value,
we ought morally to do so.
3) There is much that the affluent can do-much more than they actually do-to prevent the
evils in 1) without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.
4) The affluent ought morally to do these things-and ought to live very differently than they
actually do.
-straightforward
The Qualified Argument
-”I could even...qualify the point so as to make it: if it is in our power to prevent
something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally
significant, we ought morally to do it.”
-ex. walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning in it, clothes will get
muddy, but this is insignificant, the death of the child would be a very bad thing
Premise 2
-takes no account of proximity or distance
-makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly
do anything, and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position
-singer thinks this is appropriate
Implications
-people do not feel ashamed or guilty about spending money
Ojections
Document Summary
The extremely poor have to contend with hunger, malnutrition, widespread disease, high infant morality, fear and poverty. Over a billion people live in extreme poverty. In 2013, 10. 7% of the world population lived on less than . 90 a day. Involves great suffering and pain from disease and hunger. I could evenqualify the point so as to make it: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought morally to do it. Ex. walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning in it, clothes will get muddy, but this is insignificant, the death of the child would be a very bad thing. Makes no distinction between cases in which i am the only person who could possibly do anything, and cases in which i am just one among millions in the same position. People do not feel ashamed or guilty about spending money.
