2 Pages
Unlock Document

Christopher Morris

Hannah Werblin Professor Morris PHIL209J 4 February 2013 Famine,Affluence, and Morality Peter Singer • Something can be done to prevent suffering and death—they aren’t inevitable or unavoidable o Richer nations have the ability to reduce suffering o Humans have to take certain actions and make certain decisions o No nation has given enough for the refugees to survive more than a few days o India will have to either let the current refugees starve or feed them and let future people starve o No one can claim to be unaware of the issue o We need to alter our moral scheme and our way of life • Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad • If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of equal or greater moral significance, we ought, morally, to do it o The distance of the person you are helping makes no difference  In a better position to judge what a person needs when close  Can provide the assistance we judge necessary  The development of the world eradicates all justifications for not helping those far away  Feel less guilty when others in a similar position have not done anything (numbers lessen obligation—ideal excuse for inactivity) o No difference if you are the only person who can do anything or if you are one of millions who can do something • Ought to give as much as possible until by giving more you would cause your own suffering o Sending money needs to be simultaneous and unexpected – people need to think that others are not giving, when in fact others are • We must redraw the distinction between charity and duty o Giving money is considered an act of charity – not giving is not wrong  If we only bought enough clothes to keep us warm and gave away the rest, we would be preventing someone else from starving  It is wrong not to give the money we don’t spend on necessities  Too drastic a change? o Argument 1: J.O. Urmson:  Moral attitudes are shaped by the needs of a society  Society needs people who will obey the laws  We must look beyond the interests of our own society o Argument 2: there needs to be a simple basic moral code or else no one will follow the moral code at all  What is possible for a person to do and what the person actually does are bot
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 209J

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.