Peter Singer's Moral Dilemmas and Resolutions

According to the CDC, there are over 3960 drowning related

deaths in Children per year in the United States.

While it's tragic statistic is far too high.

The World Health Organization estimates that there are over 6.3

million preventable deaths in Children and impoverished countries per year.

So at first glance, the statistics may seem completely unrelated,

but Peter Singer um reveals that they might not actually

be completely different.

Um He explains that poverty related death can be prevented

just as easily as johnny related death can, and that

by choosing not to aid in improving the lives of

Children. And both of these scenarios, um you're ignoring a

moral obligation.

Hi, my name is Caroline tap, and I will be

explaining Peter Singer's application of his um pond argument analogy

and Bugatti argument analogy, as well as his assessments on

the extent of one's duty to aid the world impoverished

and the worth of a child's life.

Ultimately, this demonstrates his utilitarian perspective and how this would

affect one's moral obligations.

So, first, I'll be explaining Singers pond argument by analogy,

followed by his belief that there is a measurable duty

to aid the world's impoverished, followed by his Bugatti argument,

and then finally, his assessment of the value of a

child's life.

So first Singers upon argument by analogy is used to

determine the conditions on which a child's life should be

safe. So Singer creates this hypothetical scenario where a child

is drowning in the style of pond and he poses

a question, do you save the child?

So for most people, the answer would be a definite

yes, but Singer creates this analogy that the child drowning

in a pond, it's not so different than um helping

Children in impoverished countries that are struggling with famine.

Um so he shows that by not helping a child

in need regardless of the circumstance, you're choosing not to

fulfill a moral obligation.

So his first condition states that one is morally obligated

to help save an endangered life unless it would cause

harm to himself.

So if a child is drowning in the shallow pond,

the average person should be able to go easily save

the child.

There's no real danger in doing this and therefore you

should save the child.

So it compares this analogy um with a moral dilemma

of helping resolve world hunger, stating that there is really

no difference in the danger between saving a drowning child

and the shallow pond and then providing aid to Children

in impoverished countries.

So because we have the capability to save these Children,

we are morally obligated to do so and by not

doing so, we are ignoring moral obligation.

So Singers utilitarian perspective emphasizes maximizing happiness for the greatest

amount of people.

Um so obviously it is better for two people to

be happy than one.

And according to dr Jonas grin, who is a professor

in the Philosophy department of Gutenberg University.

The principles of act utilitarianism justify saving a drowning child

because the act is optimistic both for oneself and for

the child you're saving.

So because more people will be happy if the child

is saved, you should save the drowning child.

And then based on this analogy were more morally obligated

to save Children in impoverished countries, because these Children could

also contribute to greater worldwide happiness.

So one key objection to Singers argument is that because

you will incur harm through financial loss, you're not morally

obligated to save the child.

So they create another hypothetical scenario in which there is

still a child drowning in a shallow pond, but you're

wearing your best suit in your best shoes, and if

you get in the water to save them, they'll get

ruined. Um so because you'll incur harm through the financial

loss of ruining your best suit, you're not morally obligated

to help save these Children.

By analogy, you wouldn't have to help save Children in

impoverished countries.

However, singers um financial objection to join our states, that

there is a clear difference between physical harm and other

forms of forms of harm, And especially something as trivial

as ruining one suit and shoes doesn't result in child

physical harm.

Um so saving a child doesn't result in any physical

harm, so you're still morally obligated to do so.

And then obviously by analogy, um by donating to help

these Children in impoverished countries, it's causing you financial strain

rather than physical harm.

So you're still morally obligated to help them.

So, another objection is um the distance objection, So if

someone is drowning in a shallow pond, but they're far

away, you're not morally obligated to save them because you

might not be able to reach them.

Um So there really is no moral obligation to save

the child.

However, singers distance objection joined explains that one is obligated

to save endangered person at any distance, um you're still

morally obligated to help another life unless there's a morally

significant reason not to do so, and just because the

pond is farther away, that's no significant moral reason not

to help save them.

Um So through analogy, even though Children in impoverished countries

maybe far away from those of us living in the

United States, for example, this is not a morally relevant

reason to not help them.

So, another objection is that um there may be other

people not contributing to the beneficence of others.

Um So in the analogy, there may be people watching

the child drowned and so you can you're not morally

obligated to do so because there's other people that are

just watching um Hover singers at popular rejoinder explains that

there's no morally significant reason not to save a child,

just based on the actions of others.

Um and so the fact that others are not saving

a drowning child is not a morally valid reason for

you not to save the child.

Um said the analogy, even though there are plenty of

people in the world not contributing to the problem of

world hunger financially, um that's still no not a morally

valid reason for you not to do so.

So seeing your second concept is that we have a

measurable duty to aid in the world's impoverished.

And for this, he provides two versions of this argument,

the first one being the strong version which states that

we should donate until we reach the level of margin

marginal utility or until we only have enough money for

necessities rather than luxuries.

And in fact, he goes so far as to saying

we should donate until we reach the level of a

Bengali refugee financially.

According to dr desk Gaspar who is a professor of

developmental ethics at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

There is an obligation for the wealthy to transfer resources

to the poor for things like needs, utilities, reits historical

debts, etcetera.

Um And so based on this as well as singer

statement, we are morally obligated to financially contribute until we

have reached that level of margie marginal utility where we

have exactly what we need for survival.

Um So he also supports his claim by saying that

um the things that individuals should be valuing more so

than um material things are the lives and well being

of others.

Um and that we still have a moral obligation to

help these people and this should take precedence over our

selfish needs.

So for the non extremists um he proposes a weak

version of this where we should donate as much as

we can financially without morally significant sacrifice.

Um so it's important to make personal sacrifices unless they

are outweighed by moral consequences.

Um so for example, um if the whole principle of

this major financial donation is only partially adopted by the

upper classes of society is still important to give enough

money that would completely eliminate consumer society, which really embodies

um sort of this unnecessary consumption of luxury things we

don't need.

Um because so much money of this consumer society is

spent on trivial things.

Um if we actually gave enough financial contributions to a

level that's morally adequate consumer society, as you can see

in the graph, which is completely collapsed, so this again

may also seem extreme.

Um but the rise of consumer society is really only

promoting unnecessary spending.

Um and so by supporting this consumer society, we're ignoring

a moral obligation to the impoverished.

So the third concept is the Bugatti argument by analogy,

which emphasizes the factor of personal sacrifice to uphold our

moral obligations.

So it creates another analogous situation where a man has

Bugatti has invested his entire retirement and life savings into

it, no insurance, um and he has to make this

choice where you can either save the car or you

can save a child that is on the train tracks.

Um but if he saves the child, his car will

be destroyed.

Um so shockingly in the scenario, he allows the child

to die by saving his car.

Um, so he uses his analogy, Singer does to show

that when we fail to make personal sacrifices for the

greater happiness, we're not helping um, save these child child's

life, even though, you know, we could be.

Um, so he states that saving a child's life is

a greater moral obligation than just the financial loss.

Um, so although it's easily recognizable in the scenario that

the man made the wrong decision is a lot less

easy to see that we are also doing the same

thing by contributing to the suffering of these impoverished Children,

by prioritizing our material needs over the lives of these

Children. Um, so even though you're losing your retirement fund,

you're only losing a single source of happiness rather than

entire life as opposed to a child that can generate

more happiness in the world.

And S Singer states utilitarianism is important to maximize happiness

for the greatest amount of people.

Singers final claim states that there are a few more

things more valuable than a child's life and you are

morally obligated to uphold and enforce this principle.

Um, so his utilitarianism claim they say that you should

do what is most morally beneficial to the most people.

Um, so saving a child really is more morally valuable

than being able to afford superficial items.

Um, so naturally there is no set price on a

child's life or well being, and by purchasing luxury items,

you're choosing to ignore the needs of these impoverished families

by putting their needs at a lower value than your

own personal desires.

Because there are few things more valuable than a child's

life when those of us in the more fortunate situations

have the power to give other people these things essential

for life such as food and clean water.

And instead we choose to spend that money on luxuries.

We are committing immoral act in conclusion.

Singers arguments of the pond analogy duty to the impoverished

Bugatti analogy and the worth of a child's life debate

demonstrate his utilitarian principles that one is morally obligated to

do this.

Um They should help the poor whenever they have the

ability to.

So even though millions of americans are impoverished, um many

of them still have access to things like T.

V. Cars, food, water.

Um unlike many citizens of truly impoverished countries, so although

donating money to these people from so far away, especially

until we have a little more than the Bengali refugees

may sound extreme.

But taking the resources for something that would be normally

used like a cup of coffee every day or a

new pair of shoes and by using them to save

the lives of impoverished Children worldwide is not so quite

daunting or unrealistic by making a small change in our

lives. We may be able to have a more profound

effect than what we could even imagine

Peter Singer's Moral Dilemmas and Resolutions

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated