Singer’s basic argument
• If it is within our power to prevent something
very bad without sacrificing something of
comparable moral significance, we should do it.
• Absolute poverty is very bad
• There are some things we can do to prevent
absolute poverty
• Therefore we are obligated to sacrifice everything
not comparable to AP to prevent AP
• If the argument is sound, then we ought to
live a much simpler life, and use much of our
extra income to prevent Absolute poverty.
Objections
• Shouldn't we take care of our own
• We should, but just because someone is far
away does not make our obligation any less—
why should geographical location matter?
Property Rights
• Some say that if our wealth was obtained by
legal and moral means, then we have a right
to it.
• Singer: The argument does not entail that
anyone is forced to give up their wealth. The
conclusion is that we are obliged morally to do
so.
• But S. thinks this theory of property rights is
mistaken—leaves to much to luck
Ethics of Triage
• If we aid poorer countries, this will only
encourage people in those country to breed,
creating a worse humanitarian crisis in the
future
• Singer: we have reason to believe that as
nation becomes more wealthy, birth rates
decrease (as in US and Europe)
Two types of Pacific's
• Killing is always wrong
• War is always wrong
• The first entails the second, but not vice-versa.
Is it always wrong to kill?
• Biblical reasons
• Sanctity of life
Lackey thinks the Biblical interpretation is
questionable and even if it weren’t its possible
that the Bible is mistaken.
“Sanctity of life” can mean (1) nothing ever
should be killed or (2) as much life should be
preserved as possible.
Problems with the view that killing is
always wrong
• If killing is always wrong, then it is wrong to
kill even to save the lives of many people. So it
turns out that “respecting life” actually leads
to more death!
• Also if preserving life has the highest value,
then life risking behavior which we think of as
heroic or at least not bad, would be morally
wrong.
Right to life argument?
• IF we have a right, then we have a right to
defend it. So if I have a right to life, I have the
right to use violence to defend that right
which contradicts total non-violence.
Anti-War Pacifism
• In war soldiers are killed, which is an
intentional violation of their right to life
Responses—war is self defense
But self defense is only justifiable if there is no
other way you could save your life.
Also many soldiers who die are not in “kill or be
killed” situations.
Do soldiers assume the risk?
Killing of civilians
• Substantial civilian casualties necessary part of
war.
• Pacifist says these deaths are like murder, since
you know they will occur and you intend to do
actions that will lead to these deaths.
• Anti-pacifists: It matters whether you intend to
cause the deaths directly and whether the deaths
are really necessary. But if these two conditions
are met, civilian death in war is a regrettable
necessity.
• What about vaccinations and highways.. These
also lead to foreseeable deaths?
• Pacifists contend that the reason these deaths
are allowed is not because they are
unintended and regretted, but because the
people consent to them.
Utilitarian arguments
Isn’t war justified to prevent a great evil?
Pacifist can deny that “the ends justify the
means”
Also point out that wars often create little good:
Mexican war, revolutionary war, WWI ,
What of WWII—Lackey thinks the 6.5 million
who died in the war is an evil so great that it is
not outweighed by defeating the Nazis and
imperialistic Japanese.