Transcript Taking Famine Seriously: Are YOU Morally Obligated to Help

Taking Hunger Seriously:
Are YOU Morally Obligated to
Help Desperately Poor Children?
Nathan Nobis, Ph.D.
[email protected], www.NathanNobis.com
1
Media Coverage
•
•
•
•
•
Time magazine cover stories
National TV News
Live 8 concerts
Bono from U2
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
2
“Philosophical Coverage”
3
4
Why Is there an Issue?
Facts About Hunger & Poverty
• 1.2 billion people live in ‘absolute poverty,’ “a
condition of life so characterized by malnutrition,
illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant
mortality and low life expectancy as to be beneath
any reasonably definition of human decency” (Robert
McNamara, World Bank).
• “Six million children--and even more adults--die
unnecessarily every year. Good people all over the
world are doing their best to save them. You can
too” (TIME magazine, Nov. 7, 2005)
– 16,000 a day; 700 an hour; 12 a minute!
5
Why Is there an Issue?
Facts About Hunger & Poverty
• Deaths from malnutrition and untreated povertyrelated disease:
– 19%: dehydrating effects of chronic diarrhea:
prevented by oral re-hydration salts (cost per
packet: 15 cents).
– 19%: acute respiratory infections, saved with
antibiotics (cost: 25 cents).
– measles: vitamin A therapy (cost per capsule: less
than 10 cents) or measles vaccine (cost: $17 per
vaccine) to prevent it.
6
Singer’s conclusion,
which he gives reasons for:
• You are morally obligated to donate to faminerelief and absolute poverty-relief organizations;
your not giving is morally wrong.
– Assumption: your basic needs are met; probably, you spend
a fair amount on “luxuries.” Directed towards you, not just
other people.
• How much $ ?!?
– Singer says: “substantial amounts,” until your giving would
be a “significant” sacrifice; donate whatever is left after
“necessities” and you would spend on “luxuries.” ???
– How about we first focus on whether we might be
obligated to give something? .$25/day? $10 a month?
7
Three Cases
involving Moral Choices:
• The Fountain
• Dora and the TV
• Bob and the Bugatti
• We will use these cases (“thought
experiments” and what you (or, at least
many people) think about them, to develop
an argument for Singer’s conclusion.
•
From “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” NY Times, Sept. 5, 1999
8
Case 1. You at the Fountain
What would be right to do?
9
Ambiguity in “morally right”:
“Morally right” can mean:
(1) morally permissible, i.e., OK to do, not wrong, not
impermissible, or
(2) morally obligatory, i.e., that you are morally
required to do the action; that if you don’t do it, you
are doing something wrong, something morally
impermissible.
What did you mean?
Is saving the child merely permissible,
or is it morally obligatory?
10
Or, you at the pond
11
Case 2.
Dora & the Organ-Peddlers
Morally, what should Dora do? Is she obligated
to save the child, or not?
12
Case 3:
Bob and the Bugatti
Morally, what should Bob do? Is he obligated to save
the child, or not?
13
Three Cases:
What did YOU think about them?
14
What many people think:
• “In each case, the child should be saved.
You, Dora and Bob are morally obligated to
save the child. It’s not just nice to save the
child; if you don’t do it, you’ve done
something wrong!”
• (You might disagree, especially about Bob. We’ll talk
about that in a bit!)
• Question: What reasons can be given in
favor of this view? Make a list!
15
Some common reasons, defenses:
• “If I were the child (or he/she were my child), I’d
want to be saved . . .”
• “Lives are more important or valuable than material
things and comforts. . .”
• “The harms to the child (death!) are much greater
than the harms to the rescuer (getting wet, losing TV
or even a whole retirement fund). . .”
• “I’d feel guilty!”: Not the best reason because
– (a) why would you feel guilty? Because you’d think you
did something wrong [see above for reasons why!] and
– (b) what if someone didn’t feel guilty: would that make his
or her letting the child die morally ok?
16
Singer’s proposed moral principle:
1. If there are (a) very bad things happening,
(b) there is something that we can do that
will prevent some of these bad things from
happening and (c) we can do these things
without sacrificing something of
comparable moral significance, then we are
morally obligated to do so (and it’s wrong
not to).
Why accept this principle? . . .
What if you rejected this principle? . . .
17
The argument
1. If there are (a) very bad things happening, (b) there
is something that we can do that will prevent some
of these bad things from happening and (c) we can
do these things without sacrificing something of
comparable moral significance, then we are morally
obligated to do so.
2. (a) There are very bad things happening (e.g.,
children starving, etc.)
3. (b) We can do something to prevent some of these
bad things from happening (e.g., by donating).
4. (c) In doing this, we wouldn’t sacrifice something of
comparable moral significance.
5. Therefore, we are morally obligated to donate
(and it’s wrong not to).
18
Summary of argument from
Dan Rather interview on “60 Minutes”
19
Some Common Objections:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
If there are (a) very bad things happening, (b) there is something that
we can do that will prevent some of these bad things from happening
and (c) we can do these things without sacrificing something of
comparable moral significance, then we are morally obligated to do so.
(a) There are very bad things happening (e.g., children starving, etc.)
(b) We can do something to prevent some of these bad things from
happening (e.g., by donating).
(c) In doing this, we wouldn’t sacrifice something of comparable moral
significance.
Therefore, we are morally obligated to donate (and it’s wrong not
to).
If the argument is not sound, why? The
argument’s conclusion follows logically
from the premises (i.e., the argument is
logically valid), so if there’s a problem, it’s
20
that a premise is false.
Objection 1: “Hypocrisy!”
“Singer doesn’t perfectly practice what he
preaches, so his argument is not sound!”
1. The person who gives this argument does not
give away all (or even more than 20%!) to
famine/disaster aid.
2. Therefore, I (or we) am not morally obligated
to help and Singer’s argument is unsound.
There’s a missing, false assumption here:
21
Objection 1: “Hypocrisy!” (con’t)
Adding the missing assumed premise to make the
argument logically valid:
1. The person who gives this argument does not give
away all (or even more than 20%!) to famine/disaster
aid. (T)
2. If someone says you are morally obligated to do
something, but that person does not always or
perfectly do that thing, then it’s not true that you are
obligated do that thing.
3. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
22
But premise (2) is false. Counterexample?
Objection 2: “Others Aren’t Helping!”
1. Very few people give anything, much less a
lot, to help starving people. [T]
2. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
There’s a missing, false assumption here:
23
Objection 2: “Others Aren’t Helping!”
(con’t)
Adding the missing, assumed premise to make
the argument logically valid:
1. Very few people give anything, much less a lot,
to help starving people. [T]
2. If very few people are doing some action, then I
am not obligated to do it.
3. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
But premise (2) is false. Counterexample?
24
At the Fountain with your lazy friends!
25
Objection 3:
“If everyone contributed…”
“If everyone helped out, I wouldn’t have to
give very much, so I don’t have to give very
much! I only have to contribute what would
be needed if everyone else contributed their
fair share!”
26
Objection 3:
“If everyone contributed…” (con’t)
1. In cases where a “group effort” could solve
a problem, I am only obligated to contribute
what would be needed if everyone were
doing their part.
2. This is a case where a “group” effort could
solve the problem. [True?]
3. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help
(beyond, say, $1 or so!).
But premise (2) is false: counterexample?
27
“Pulling someone heavy
from the fountain”
28
Objection 4:
“It’s the job of governments!”
“It’s the government’s responsibility; they aren’t doing what they
are supposed to, so I don’t have to help!”
1. Governments are responsible for assuring
that people have food and basic medical care.
2. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
Adding the missing premise to make the argument valid:
1. Governments are responsible for assuring that people have food
and basic medical care.
2. If governments are not doing what they are supposed to do,
then I am never morally obligated to assist.
3. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help
But premise (2) is false: counterexample?
29
Objection 5:
“The child is a stranger…”
1. In these cases, the person in need is a stranger.
2. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
Adding the missing premise to make the argument
valid:
1. In these cases, the person in need is a stranger. [T]
2. If someone in need is a stranger, then you are
never morally obligated to help them.
3. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
But premise (2) is false: counterexample?
30
Objection 6:
“The child is a far away…”
1. In these cases (unlike the Fountain, Dora & Bob),
the person in need is far away and I/we don’t see
them.
2. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
Adding the missing premise to make the argument
valid:
1. The person in need is far away and I don’t see them. [T]
2. If someone is far away and you don’t see them, then you
are never morally obligated to help them.
3. Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
But premise (2) is false: counterexample!
31
Objection 7:
“I/we did not cause their problem!”
1.
2.
I/we did not cause their problems.
Therefore, I (or we) am not obligated to help.
Adding the missing premise to make the argument valid:
1.
2.
3.
I/we did not cause their problems. [?]
If we do not cause someone’s problem, then we are never
morally obligated to help them.
Therefore, we are not morally obligated to help.
But premise (2) is false: counterexample?
32
Objection (observation?) 8:
“People will not accept this argument. . ”
1. “People will not accept this argument; they won’t
accept the conclusion and do what Singer says
they should.” [T? F?]
2. For any topic, if people won’t accept some
conclusion or follow it, then that conclusion is false
or the argument for it unsound.
3. Therefore, Singer’s conclusion is false or the
argument for it unsound.
But premise (2) is false. Why?
33
Objection 9: We Can’t Help!?
• Premise 3 – that “we can do something to prevent
some of these bad things from happening (e.g., by
donating)” is false because:
– “Helping these people will only make things worse for
them.”
• If true, then we are not obligated to help. But why think this
always true?
– “Anything we would donate would never make it to
them.”
• If true, then we are not obligated to help. But why think this
always true?
34
Objection 10: The Fatal Objection from
“Opportunity Costs” for doing GOOD
Singer says that in donating to help save starving
children, “we wouldn’t sacrifice something
of comparable moral significance.”
–
–
Is this true? Need honest answers.
Honesty suggests that many of the things we
routinely spend money on are not as significant
or valuable as children’s lives.
35
Objection 10: The Fatal Objection from
“Opportunity Costs” for doing GOOD
However,
If you donate $X to Oxfam, that’s $X less that you
could (and would) donate to any other cause.
Are there any other causes of comparable moral
significance, anything as bad and as worthy of
concern?
•
Possible causes? _____________________________
If there are, then giving to starving children is
not, contrary to Singer’s argument, morally
obligatory. His argument is unsound.
36
Not so easy! Not so fast!
• This response concedes that we can do good
for others, and that we should, but gives us a
wider range of morally acceptable options.
• The only morally impermissible option would
be doing nothing.
• So what could you do? What should you do?
37
The Ten Dollar Club .org
38
World On Fire. ca
39