TPQs (10/5) Group 3 Posts, Group 4 Responds
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Becko Copenhaver
Aug 25, 2012, 2:37:28 PM8/25/12
to phi...@googlegroups.com
Becko Copenhaver
Oct 8, 2012, 7:24:30 PM10/8/12
to phi...@googlegroups.com
test
estanbro
Oct 11, 2012, 12:29:08 AM10/11/12
to phi...@googlegroups.com
Still nothing to respond to...so I'll just make some observations about Singer's Rich and Poor as we wrap up utilitarianism and move on.
Singer first notes McNamara's differences between relative poverty and absolute poverty. McNamara defines absolute poverty as someone who is in poverty by any standard.They don’t have enough money for the basic necessities to live (goods necessary for basic human biological survival), such as food, shelter, and medical care. Relative poverty on the other hand, is poverty in relation to others around you. For example, someone in the United States that makes only $20,000 per year may be considered in poverty, given that the average income in the US is much higher than this. But someone in the US making $20,000 per year is not in absolute poverty, because they still have the means to get the goods necessary for basic human survival. Singer then notes that those in relative poverty in North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are most likely not in absolute poverty.
The main point of the argument is that there is at least some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, and thus we ought to prevent some absolute poverty. One way in which Singer suggests that we could do this is essentially stopping eating meat. Singer notes that we use a ton of grain to feed cattle, in order to later eat the cattle. This is a very inefficient process though, as the cattle meat does not go as far as the raw grain does. If we were to send that raw grain to those in absolute poverty, we could feed everyone in the world. Thus, it is not a resources issue.
Singer then raises the question of whether not giving some of what we have to feed others is the moral equivalent of murder. But not giving some of what you have to save others is not directly killing people, rather it is letting them die. What is the difference in killing and letting someone die? We have noted this difference several times. This idea of giving some of what you have to help others reminds me of the Hooker article, where famine relief is discussed in the context of partial compliance. Does, as Hooker notes, this partial compliance make utilitarianism excessively demanding?
Singer first notes McNamara's differences between relative poverty and absolute poverty. McNamara defines absolute poverty as someone who is in poverty by any standard.They don’t have enough money for the basic necessities to live (goods necessary for basic human biological survival), such as food, shelter, and medical care. Relative poverty on the other hand, is poverty in relation to others around you. For example, someone in the United States that makes only $20,000 per year may be considered in poverty, given that the average income in the US is much higher than this. But someone in the US making $20,000 per year is not in absolute poverty, because they still have the means to get the goods necessary for basic human survival. Singer then notes that those in relative poverty in North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are most likely not in absolute poverty.
The main point of the argument is that there is at least some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, and thus we ought to prevent some absolute poverty. One way in which Singer suggests that we could do this is essentially stopping eating meat. Singer notes that we use a ton of grain to feed cattle, in order to later eat the cattle. This is a very inefficient process though, as the cattle meat does not go as far as the raw grain does. If we were to send that raw grain to those in absolute poverty, we could feed everyone in the world. Thus, it is not a resources issue.
Singer then raises the question of whether not giving some of what we have to feed others is the moral equivalent of murder. But not giving some of what you have to save others is not directly killing people, rather it is letting them die. What is the difference in killing and letting someone die? We have noted this difference several times. This idea of giving some of what you have to help others reminds me of the Hooker article, where famine relief is discussed in the context of partial compliance. Does, as Hooker notes, this partial compliance make utilitarianism excessively demanding?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages