Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code

1
Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code

• John Arthur

2
Singers Argument

• Singers argument is based on intuitions that
  death and suffering are bad. He also thinks
  people have equal moral worth. He concludes that
  we should help people if we can.

3
Intuitions

• Arthur argues that we have other intuitions that
  people deserve to keep their earnings. This he
  thinks gives us reason to deny Singers argument.
• He also argues that an ideal moral code would
  reject Singers conclusions on this basis.

4
Equal Value

• Does all life have equal value?
• Hitler and Martin Luther King did not lead
  equally valuable lives. Hitler was also a worse
  person. People are not morally equal in many
  ways.
• We might say all people are equal when we mean
  all people have certain basic rights. This
  doesnt mean people need to have the same things.

5
Desert

• We might mean that people deserve to have at
  least those things which will prevent them from
  suffering or dieing from lack of basic
  necessities.
• This would require us to give away our earnings
  if there is a greater evil that could be
  prevented by our doing so.

6
The Strong Version

• The strong version of Singers argument says we
  should prevent bad things from happening if we
  can do so without sacrificing anything morally
  comparable.
• He uses the analogy of a child drowning.

7
Equal Significance

• Singer believes that like amounts of suffering
  (or happiness) are of equal moral significance no
  matter who is experiencing them (583).
• This is the greater moral evil principle
• He thinks we shouldnt give preference to our
  less important interests over others more
  important interests.

8
Entitlements

• Singer ignores the idea of entitlements - just
  deserts are morally significant.
• Though others could benefit from your eye more
  than you do that doesnt mean you have to give it
  up.
• You have a right to your body. A negative right
  to be free from interference.

9
Positive and Negative Rights

• Arthur thinks that positive rights (to things)
  are not natural or human rights.
• He says we only have these if others have
  contracted to give us some things.
• People only have a right to aid if some have
  contracted to give it to them.

10
Duty

• But we generally think people have a duty to aid
  even if no one has a right to receive aid.
• Case of baby sitter and neglect

11
Greater Moral Evil

• The greater moral evil principle ignores rights.
• Arthur thinks sometimes our rights (not to have
  to help) can justify not helping.
• If we deserve our possessions we have another
  reason not to have to give them up. We have a
  right to them.
• Case of lazy and diligent farmers

12
At Least a Little Weight

• Deserts can be outweighed but they count for
  something.
• Singer is arguing that we should change our moral
  code.
• Arthur thinks he is suggesting that desert
  principles count for nothing.

13
Moral Code

• A moral code is a system of principles, rules
  and other standards designed to guide peoples
  conduct. (585).
• Moral dictates are important they are different
  from rules of etiquette and law.

14
Change

• Moral codes change slowly and serve a purpose.
  People can disagree about what the purpose is.
• He thinks the ideal code must be that which when
  taught and recognized by society would have the
  best consequences.

15
Kids

• We teach kids not to hit each other, for instance
  because we think that this will promote well
  being. We teach them to keep promises for the
  same reason.

16
Sentiment

• Given that people naturally feel good by being
  treated in some ways and not others we need a
  theory that is in accord with these feelings.
• We want to promote others well being.

17
Egoists

• Egoists just dont understand the value of
  others interests.
• We might ask them if they can publically support
  an egoistic moral code. Would it be reasonable
  to think others might really accept this?
• Moral codes must win public support.

18
What Works

• The ideal code must be one that works for people
  as they are, or at least as they can be
  reasonably encouraged to become. (588)

19
Ideal Code

• The ideal code cant ignore right because that
  would suppose people are more altruistic than
  they are.
• Singers code just makes most people feel guilty.
• It encourages conflict between people who do and
  do not meet his standards.
• A less demanding code might achieve more.

20
Unrealistic

• People are also less objective, ill informed and
  biased than singer supposes. They will
  rationalize after the fact.
• So, he thinks, we might do better saying never
  break promises than break them whenever doing so
  maximizes utility.

21
Stealing

• While Singer might be happy if we stole to help
  the poor, a principle allowing this might make
  things worse. People would likely misuse the
  principle.
• What would Singer say in response, though?

22
Desert (again)

• He thinks the ideal code should include desert.
  We need to have incentives to work. Without this
  principle people might work less hard so that
  everyones utility would decline. This might
  lead to guilt by those that did not contribute
  and resentment by those that did.
• Would everyones utility really decline?
  Necessarily?

23
Entitlements (again)

• He does think we need to give something though.
  Entitlements are not absolute.
• He thinks that the ideal code could require us to
  give to those close to us when the costs are very
  low.

24
Thoughts?