The Logic of Affecting Outcomes

Hi, guys.

My name is Rick Dinkins, and I'm here to give

an informative speech about Peter Singer's theory of moral utilitarianism.

Through the course of the speech, I will examine and

explained Peter Singer's moral theory of utilitarianism to my audience,

which is you guys, um, which bases moral goodness on

the outcome of one's actions, which is very interesting if

you think about it.

Uh huh.

But before we get into the hairy nous of his

theories and the aspects of moral utilitarianism, I'm going to

do a thought experiment with you guys.

So do me a favor.

Imagine if you had the ability to see the outcomes

of your actions in real time.

Imagine that you could see how your actions and inactions

affected those around you, but not just those in your

immediate circle.

Even for those decisions, which are more often, they're not,

will affect those on a more global setting than we're

accustomed to.

Pretty interesting, right?

It's a pretty unique superpower.

What would you do with it?

I mean, really, what would you do with it?

I'm sure there are some of us, you know, that

would envision having superpowers.

Art thief, burglar even, Or perhaps maybe even a supervillain,

you know?

But these things are not what Peter Singer envisions us

to be doing with this superpower, because he makes the

argument that we already have it.

He asserts that when we give to famine relief, we

have the noble and foreseeable outcome that we can see

is that it will save lives.

So if biggest I f we give to famine relief,

then lives will be saved.

This is called a conditional statement, if you will, and

if then statement which that's gonna be important a little

bit later.

Um, in fact, let's go and get into this.

Uh, if then statement holds that if X is true,

then why is true or if p then Q.

So if P then.

Q. It reads that P then Q or P implies

Q that if we give to famine relief, which is

P um, which is the premise and then Q, which

is our conclusion?

Lives were saved, and it's irrefutable.

It's called truth functional logic.

TfL, Um and Peter Singer's arguments often have this very

simple yet irrevocable, irrefutable evidence to them.

I'll explain that a little bit later now, in addition,

Thio Singers, um, logical arguments.

He used his thought experiments that are designed to test

the limitations, off ones, morality within the confines of his

moral theory of utilitarianism.

The first one that he gives is what we call

the lake argument.

Um, singer gives the following scenario that you're on your

way to work and you notice a small child drowning

in a shallow pool of water, and he asserts that

it is your moral obligation to save that child.

Now, Singer continues to assert that no harm will come

to you if you rescue the child.

But he has, ah, various number of attitude.

Um, say that when you say the child that your

clothes will somehow become muddy and wet, and it will

result, and you having to go home and change clothes,

which then results in you being late for work.

This attitude is to is intended to test the limitations

of how far you are willing to go to save

the child.

Singer then adds various other modifiers to influence the extent

the participant will go in orderto achieve the desired outcome,

which is of course, to save the child.

He changes, Of course, the number of Children.

If that is a, um, influencer on the scenario, he

changes whether or not your mobile, whether or not you're

riding a bike.

Hey, changes by standards where if you're not the only

one around, if other people are there and other people

are watching their inaction, does that fuel or dissuade you

or somehow disqualify you from your moral obligation to save

the child off course wth E end result, according to

singer, within any scenario would be the same that you

are morally obligated to save the child.

Because if you are not risking something of equal or

greater value to yourself, then you are morally obligated to

save that child's life.

Now Singer uses this conclusion that if you are able

to do so without losing something of equal or greater

value, this conclusion to establish a link between his arguments

on the drowning child and adds this to his his

famine relief by stating that if we're able to save

a child's life by sacrificing something of lesser value, such

as money, then we are morally obligated to do so.

It's a simple is that Peter Singer gives ah lot

of modifiers and questions for this on dhe, the big

one for me, um, that I wanted to highlight for

us is what is the extent to which we have

to give What are our duties to the world's impoverished

singer argues that we should give what you are able

but does not set a specified dollar amount, but notes

that not giving, not giving the world hunger is morally

wrong because you are essentially allowing theater.

Four mentioned child within the lake experiment to drown.

But instead of succumbing toe waterborne illness such as drowning

wth each child's life is taken because of curable diseases

and world hunger.

Now another philosopher, his name is Andrew Jay Cohen.

Andrew John Cohen.

Um, he's a bit of a Swiss army knife, mathematicians,

statisticians and philosopher.

He argues that the need for famine relief is severe

and that not enough is being done to combat it.

Needless death and hunger around the globe.

Now that's agreeable, but it's still on the spectrum of

the two versions off what singers argument has.

You have the week version and the strong version, so

I'm gonna go over the week version S o.

The week version is According to singer Ah, child's life

should be worth more to you than in a new

pair of shoes, a new phone, um, and so on.

And if you have the power to save a child's

life, what you dio without sacrificing something of equal or

greater value, then you are morally obligated to donate to

famine relief again.

The week version does not specify a monetary amount.

It says you, if you are able to give, you

are morally obligated to do so.

Now the strong version Singer asserts that you should give

and give and give until you reach the point of

what he calls marginal unity, where in that you are

at the near or the exact same level.

Economically speaking as those you are giving to, let's say

that you are giving to Somalian refugees you should give

until you are as impoverished as a Somalian refugee.

Now singer ways these two options in asserts that this

second, the stronger version is the quote morally correct version.

So now we're gonna go over one of singers, Mawr

um, contemporary arguments, which is the Bugatti thought experiment, which

in itself is simply a variant of the trolley problem

the trolley problem, which is a thought experiment aimed to

assess the, uh, the moral or ethical limits of the

person that's involved in the experiment.

So in the Bugatti argument, um, Singer gives the following

scenario an older man named Bob.

He owns an expensive Bugatti, which he views as his

retirement policy but does not have insurance on the car

and finds himself like all trolley like culturally problems.

You're just there.

There is no preamble.

There is no pretext.

You are facing a dilemma.

Where in you are on the train tracks?

Um, you have the switch in hand, and you can

either save your precious car or allow a child to

die. Singer concludes that Bob should save the Save the

child at the cost off his car because he has

the ability to do so.

This example, this example directly correlates with his world hunger

argument because it holds the same principle that if you

can save a life without sacrificing something as important, you

are morally obligated to do so.

In conclusion, Singer's utilitarianism is based on the obligation that

we all should attempt or try our best to make

the world a better place by allowing our actions collectively

and individually to create more bad than good.

He argues that we're morally obligated to give, regardless of

the excuses we tell ourselves, simply because we're able to

do so, we must give to famine relief, he argues.

Peter Singer's moral philosophy of utilitarianism attempts to hold people

accountable to the consequences of their actions and inactions with

the goal of making the world a better place, meaning

more good than bad.

With that in mind, I've given you his argument, and

truly it's up for you and you alone to decide

what you want to do with it.

Thank you guys very much.

My name is Rick Dinkins, and you guys have a

wonderful day.

The Logic of Affecting Outcomes

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated