PHL A11 Introduction to Ethics - Peter Singer (Part 2) PDF

PHL A11 Introduction to Ethics October 5 Peter Singer continued ● Recap of: Lecture plan ○ Idea 1: the life you can save ○ Idea 2: the duty to give ● Idea 3: Speciesism 2 Singers asks what we, as individuals, ought to do to reduce the death and suffering caused by absolute poverty, climate...

PHL A11 Introduction to Ethics October 5 Peter Singer continued ● Recap of: Lecture plan ○ Idea 1: the life you can save ○ Idea 2: the duty to give ● Idea 3: Speciesism 2 Singers asks what we, as individuals, ought to do to reduce the death and suffering caused by absolute poverty, climate change, and other global issues. The most impactful thing that most of us can do is give money to effective charities. So, Singer argues, that’s what we ought to do. 3 Singer thinks we have a moral duty to give to good charities. It’s wrong to not give: it’s akin to not saving a drowning child. He bases his argument on this principle: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. 4 “Most of us are absolutely certain that we wouldn’t hesitate to save a drowning child, and that we would do it at considerable cost to ourselves. Yet while thousands of children die each day, we spend money on things we take for granted and would hardly notice if they were not there. Is that wrong? If so, how far does our obligation to the poor go?” (Singer 2010, 12) 5 First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong to do so. Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important. Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong. Singer presents a valid argument for his view. If the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion must also be true. So, to reject the conclusion, we have to find a good reason to reject one of the premises. What do you think? Can any of the premises be reasonably rejected? 6 Second AI-based writing exercise For the second AI-based writing exercise, I’ve asked ChatGPT to write an essay evaluating Singer’s argument. Your task is to improve ChatGPT’s essay. The instructions are almost the same as on the first of these writing exercises, but the improvements we’re looking for are slightly different, with more weight placed on the evaluation of objections. Due date: Friday October 27, end of day. Start it early if you other assignments or midterms around this time! 7 Singer calls his ethical view “effective altruism.” The guiding idea behind ethical altruism is to try to do as much good as you can, over the course of your life. ➔ Effective altruists argue that this goal can give life meaning and purpose. ➔ They have founded organisations to recruit more people to the goal of giving more, and giving more effectively. This might include… 8 Choosing the career in which you can earn the most, in order to give as much money as possible to charity. Effective altruists argue that most people can do the most good by finding a high-earning career (e.g. in finance or management) and donating much of what they earn. Organisations like 80,000 Hours help people choose the careers that will allow them to do the most good. 9 Determining which charities are most effective, i.e. which do the greatest good with our money. Organisations like GiveWell and Animal Charity Evaluators do research to identify the most effective charities: those that use money efficiently towards high-impact causes. Singer contrasts effective giving with “warm glow” giving: giving to causes that make you feel good, but which do very little good (comparatively speaking) with your money. His example: the Make-a-Wish foundation. 10 11 A consequentialist ethic Effective altruism is a consequentialist ethic. It says we should take the actions that have the best results or which do the most good. ➔ Contrast this with Kant’s deontological ethics, which holds that ethics is about following categorical rules, regardless of the consequences. ➔ Contrast this Aristotle’s virtue ethics, which holds that ethics is about finding the mean between excess and deficiency, not about maximizing the good that we do. 12 A consequentialist ethic One consequentialist ethic is utilitarianism. Utilitarians say we ought to maximise utility (pleasure). We can state the idea in this principle: Singer’s view is similar to utilitarianism, but he presents a slightly different and less controversial principle: If it is in your power to increase pleasure or prevent pain, without sacrificing a greater pleasure or causing a greater pain, it is wrong to not do so. “If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so” (15). Can you see why Singer’s principle is less controversial than the utilitarian principle? 13 Singer’s big idea 3: Speciesism 14 Does animal suffering matter? Singer tells us to take to prevent suffering and death when we can. But what about the suffering and death of animals, such as the animals that are farmed for meat, milk, and eggs? Singer says that animal welfare matters too. If an animal can suffer, we ought to take steps to prevent (or avoid contributing to) that suffering. 15 Does animal suffering matter? Many philosophers—such as Kant and Aristotle—have drawn a sharp distinction between humans and other animals based on our capacity for reason. Singer doesn’t think this is a very important distinction. What matters is whether an animal is sentient: whether it can feel pleasure and pain. “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that the suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—in so far as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being” (57). 16 The principle of equality Singer’s “principle of equality” is the idea all pleasures and pains are equally morally important, no matter who (or what) is experiencing them. A pleasure or pain felt by me is no more (and no less) important than an equal degree of pleasure or pain felt by you. Equality = equal consideration of interests. ➔ Racists deny that the pleasure and pain of some races of humans is morally important, or say it is not as important as the pleasure and pain of humans of “superior races.” ➔ Speciesists (Singer’s term) deny that the pleasure and pain of non-humans is morally important, or say it is not as important as the pleasure and pain of humans. 17 The principle of equality It might be difficult to compare pleasures and pains between animals of different species. But Singer thinks some comparisons are clear cut: ● The pleasure that humans gain from eating meat, eggs, or milk products is outweighed by the suffering of the factory-farmed animal. ● The pleasure that humans gain from using beauty products is outweighed by the suffering of animals used in lab testing. It’s possible that some of the suffering we inflict on animals is justified by the large benefits to humans. (Some forms of animal testing in medicine might be justifiable in this way.) But it’s a form of unjustified discrimination to disregard animal suffering just because it’s non-human suffering. 18 Speciesism: study questions Interpretative questions (about what the author means): What does Singer mean by “speciesism”? Why does he think it is wrong? What are some examples of speciesism? Explain in terms of Singer’s “principle of equality.” Critical questions (about whether the author makes a good argument): Are you persuaded by the case that Singer makes against speciesism? If not, why not: what is your objection to his view? Does Singer already address your objection in this part of the reading? 19 Will you become an effective altruist? Will you try to do the most good that you can with your life? 20