"Famine, Affluence and Morality" essay by Peter Singer Presentation

Summary

In this video script, the speaker delves into Peter Singer's essay, 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality,' discussing the moral obligation to help those in need, particularly addressing issues of starvation. The speaker contrasts Singer's strict and moderate views, emphasizing how people’s resistance often arises from discomfort with terms like 'moral obligation' and the role of money. The discussion touches on the ethics of spending on luxury goods when basic needs could be met instead. This creates an engaging debate on the moral duties of individuals in a world of inequality.

Takeaways

• 😀 The main philosophical question in Peter Singer's essay is whether we are morally obligated to feed the starving.
• 😀 Singer distinguishes between two perspectives on moral obligation: the strict view and the moderate view. The script focuses on the moderate view for homework purposes.
• 😀 Moral obligation, as defined by Singer, refers to actions we must take in order to be considered moral individuals.
• 😀 Singer argues that feeding the starving is a moral obligation and that failure to do so can make someone immoral in his eyes.
• 😀 The concepts of inherent value and instrumental value are central to Singer's moral framework. Inherent value means something is valuable simply by existing, while instrumental value refers to something’s usefulness in achieving other goods.
• 😀 Human beings are said to have both inherent and instrumental value, with inherent value being an essential part of why we should care for others.
• 😀 A luxury item is defined as something that costs far more than its practical value, such as designer purses or high-end cars, where the price is inflated due to the brand name rather than the actual utility.
• 😀 Singer suggests that spending money on luxury items, instead of helping those in need, is morally wrong as it prioritizes brand prestige over human life.
• 😀 Supererogatory acts are good actions that are not morally required. Giving to charity is traditionally viewed this way, but Singer challenges this, proposing that feeding the starving should be considered a moral obligation, not a mere supererogatory act.
• 😀 One critique of Singer's argument is that if moral obligations are set too high, people may be discouraged from acting altogether, which could lead to inaction.
• 😀 Singer defends his stance by suggesting that if society collectively agrees to view feeding the starving as a moral obligation, it could lead to better outcomes, even if some individuals refuse to act.

Q & A

What is the central argument presented in Peter Singer's essay *Famine, Affluence, and Morality*?

Peter Singer argues that individuals have a moral obligation to assist those suffering from famine, emphasizing that we should prevent suffering when we can do so without sacrificing something of equal or greater value.

What are the two views discussed in the essay regarding moral obligation to aid others?

The two views are the *strict view*, which argues that we should sacrifice anything to prevent harm, and the *moderate view*, which argues that we have an obligation to assist but it is not as extreme as the strict view.

What does Peter Singer mean by 'inherent value' in his essay?

'Inherent value' refers to the intrinsic worth of human beings simply by virtue of their existence, meaning that all humans have moral worth regardless of other attributes.

How does Singer argue against the idea of supererogatory acts in his essay?

Singer argues that acts of charity, such as aiding those in famine, should not be seen as supererogatory—acts that are good but not morally required. He believes they should be viewed as moral obligations to elevate societal moral standards.

Why does Peter Singer critique luxury spending in his essay?

Singer critiques luxury spending because it involves purchasing items that have less moral value compared to alleviating human suffering. He argues that spending money on luxury goods instead of helping those in need is morally irresponsible.

What is the key difference between instrumental value and inherent value?

Instrumental value refers to the value something holds based on its usefulness or ability to achieve a goal (e.g., a tool), while inherent value refers to the intrinsic worth something has simply by existing, like the value of human life.

What does Singer mean when he says that humans have a moral obligation to aid others?

Singer means that if we have the means to prevent suffering or death, particularly in cases of famine, without sacrificing something of equal or greater value, we are morally obligated to do so.

Why do some people find the concept of a moral obligation to aid others uncomfortable?

Some people find the concept uncomfortable because it suggests that they are morally required to act in a way that could impact their finances, particularly by reducing discretionary spending on luxury items.

How does Peter Singer respond to criticisms of his argument that aiding the starving is a moral obligation?

Singer responds by suggesting that if society collectively adopts the view that aiding the starving is a moral obligation, it would create a higher moral standard and encourage more widespread action to help those in need.

What is the significance of the term 'supererogatory' in the context of the essay?

The term 'supererogatory' refers to actions that are morally good but not required. In the essay, Singer argues that helping those in need should not be viewed as supererogatory, but rather as a moral obligation.