Lecture Notes On Singer's "Famine, Affluence and Morality"

1. Singer's Two Main Theses:

A. The common attitude and response, on the part of relatively affluent people, to the radical need of many other people, especially in other parts of the world, is morally unjustifiable.

B. Our whole moral outlook--which seems to condone our living lives of relative luxury even in the face of such radical need on the part of others, which we have the power to satisfy--should be seriously revised.

2. Singer's Argument:

(i) "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are [very] bad."

(ii) (Fill this in yourself) If it is in our power _______________________________

_______________________________________________________________ (p. 790).

(iii) It is in our power to prevent a great deal of suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance--e.g. by giving a portion of our wealth to relief agencies, such as UNICEF or Oxfam, and making do with much less in the way of consumer goods.

(iv) Therefore, we ought ____________________________________________.

(v) We could give away so much of our wealth as to change our lifestyles dramatically, bringing ourselves down close to the point of equal marginal utility (i.e. the point where further giving would cause us as much suffering as it would prevent elsewhere), before we would reach the point of sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance in our efforts to save others from desperate suffering and death.

(vi) Therefore, we ought morally to provide aid to those in radical need, and to such an extent that, as long as such need persists, we give until we are at least close to the point of equal marginal utility ourselves, thus changing our lifestyles radically.

3. Is this argument logically valid? Is it sound? If you reject the conclusion, and so think the argument is unsound, which premise do you reject? Why?

4. Two Common But Problematic Responses: Physical Proximity and Fairness

A. Many people would say that the fundamental moral principle Singer is relying on in premise ii is true, but only with regard to very bad things that are happening close by, and not with regard to very bad things that are happening far away. Our moral obligations, the thought goes, are limited to preventing nearby bad things from happening, and do not extend further.

How might Singer respond to this? (Hint: This will have to do with the distinction between something's having a psychological effect on us and its being genuinely morally relevant to our obligations: these two things don't always go together. Make sure you understand this distinction.)

B. Many people reject the principle in premise ii, holding that it goes too far, and that our moral obligations are limited to doing our fair share. Suppose we could substantially wipe out hunger if everyone in the world who could afford it were to give $100, generating billions of dollars. Then, the thought goes, that's what I'm obligated to give, and no more. And the fact that as things are most people are not in fact giving their share doesn't change anything. I'm morally responsible for no more than my $100.

How might Singer respond to this? (Hint: Can you think of an analogous case where this sort of argument clearly doesn't seem to work?)

5. Question: Is there some better reason for objecting to the fundamental moral principle in step ii that Singer is getting so much mileage out of? Even if so, perhaps Singer can amend it with a somewhat weaker and more plausible principle, such that his argument will still pose a serious challenge to us. That is, maybe his conclusion is too strong as it stands and we need to weaken premise ii, but even so, he may still be able to construct a modified argument that we need to take seriously, which may have uncomfortable implications for us. Would any religious leaders you might look up to make a similar argument? Discuss this on Friday.

Recommended reading: There is a hilarious novel by Nick Hornby, entitled How to be Good, about a guy who becomes convinced of Singer's position and turns his family life upside down.