Peter Singer's Famine and Morality Flashcards

Questions and Answers

What is the main argument of Peter Singer regarding our obligations to those suffering from a lack of resources?

We ought to prevent suffering if we can do so without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. (correct)

We can ignore their suffering if we want luxuries.

We only have obligations to our neighbors.

Charity is optional.

What does Singer argue about charity?

Charity is a moral duty.

Which premise indicates that suffering from lack of resources is bad?

All suffering is unavoidable.

Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. (correct)

Suffering is good.

We should spend money on luxuries.

According to Singer, what should be our moral response to seeing someone in distress?

Help them, regardless of minor inconveniences. Signup and view all the answers

Does Singer believe that geographical proximity affects our moral obligation to help others?

False Signup and view all the answers

What does Singer suggest about the amount of people available to help?

It does not matter; we still have a moral obligation to help. Signup and view all the answers

How much should individuals give to help others?

As much as possible without causing serious suffering for themselves or their dependents. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Peter Singer's Philosophy

Examines obligations to help those suffering globally, questioning the morality of selfish luxury spending.
Advocates that preventing suffering is a moral duty when it can be done without sacrificing significant moral values.
Singer positions charity not as an option, but as a fundamental moral responsibility.

Global Suffering and Affluence

Highlights severe deprivation in developing countries, where avoidable deaths from hunger and lack of care occur.
Critiques the inaction of wealthier individuals and nations, drawing attention to their failure to contribute substantial resources for aid.

Moral Implications of Emergencies

Identifies the moral obligation to respond to crises caused by both natural and human factors, recognizing widespread awareness of suffering.
Argues that complacency among affluent societies regarding their privileged lifestyles needs reassessment.

Core Premises of Singer's Argument

Assumes suffering and death due to lack of basic needs are inherently negative.
States a moral imperative to intervene if able, without making equivalent personal sacrifices, highlighting the duty to prevent harm over promoting good.

Case Study: Drowning Child

Illustrates the moral obligation to act in emergency situations, emphasizing that minor inconveniences (like muddy clothes) are negligible compared to the value of a life saved.

Proximity in Moral Responsibility

Asserts that moral duty is not dictated by geographical closeness, stressing equal obligation to help those near and far.
Acknowledges that while it may be psychologically easier to assist those nearby, this should not influence moral decisions, especially when global suffering is well-known.

Obligation Regardless of Numbers

Proclaims that help is required regardless of whether others choose to act, emphasizing personal responsibility.
Analyzes the psychological impact of being in a group that does not help, illustrating how group dynamics can distort feelings of obligation.

How Much to Contribute

Suggests contributing to the fullest capacity, stopping only when further donations would inflict serious harm on oneself or dependents.
Introduces the concept of marginal utility, advocating for contributions until equal suffering is reached, reinforcing collective responsibility to alleviate suffering.

Description

Explore Peter Singer's insightful arguments in 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' through these flashcards. Discover the moral obligations we hold towards those in need and reflect on the ethical implications of our choices in a world of disparity. Perfect for anyone wanting to engage deeply with Singer's philosophy.