Suppose a philosopher, DK, reads Singer’s classic “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” and says “Singer’s argument ignores a fundamental moral principle: I’m morally responsible to fix only those problems I’ve caused, so morality does not require me contribute to alleviating the suffering of victims of famine.” How would Singer reply? What, in your view, is the best defence of his view? Who, as between DK and Singer, would be right, if either? Why?
Some notes on answering these questions:
“How would Singer reply?” To answer this well, you need to say what you think Singer
would say in reply to DK and give evidence that you are probably right. There are two main kinds of evidence: quotes (cites to specific pages) and analyses of arguments he makes.
“What, in your view, is the best defence of his view?” To answer this well, you need to either make a case in defence of one of Singer’s arguments or supply an argument on his behalf.
Be sure it is clear in whose voice you are speaking.
“Who, as between DK and Singer, would be right, if either? Why?” Note that it may be that the best argument in support of Singer is still not good enough to show that DK is wrong.
To answer this question well you need to not just take a side but give reasons why the reader should take the side that, in your view, has the better argument.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Reply to DK: Peter Singer’s Perspective on Moral Responsibility
In response to DK’s claim that he is only morally responsible for problems he has caused and therefore not obligated to contribute to alleviating the suffering of famine victims, Peter Singer would likely argue that moral responsibility extends beyond direct causation to encompass a broader ethical framework that prioritizes the prevention of harm and promotion of well-being. Singer’s seminal work, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” challenges traditional notions of moral obligation and advocates for a more expansive understanding of our duties towards those in need.
Singer would likely point out that our interconnectedness as global citizens necessitates a reconsideration of ethical responsibilities in light of the profound impact our actions, or inactions, can have on others. By invoking the principle of impartiality, Singer argues that individuals in affluent societies have a moral duty to prevent suffering and save lives when it is within their means to do so, regardless of whether they directly caused the problem at hand.
One of Singer’s key arguments is the drowning child analogy, where he posits that if we have the ability to save a child from drowning at little cost to ourselves, we are morally obligated to do so. This thought experiment illustrates the moral urgency of addressing preventable harm and highlights the arbitrary nature of limiting moral responsibility to only those problems we have personally caused.
The best defense of Singer’s view lies in his utilitarian ethical framework, which prioritizes maximizing overall well-being and reducing suffering as foundational principles of morality. By emphasizing the importance of impartiality, empathy, and global solidarity, Singer challenges individuals to transcend narrow self-interest and consider the broader implications of their actions on the welfare of others.
In evaluating the arguments put forth by DK and Singer, it becomes evident that Singer’s perspective offers a more compelling and ethically robust justification for contributing to alleviating the suffering of famine victims. While DK’s position may appeal to a limited scope of individual responsibility, Singer’s moral philosophy resonates with a broader conception of shared humanity and collective obligations towards those in need.
Therefore, in the debate between DK and Singer, Singer’s argument for a universal duty to alleviate suffering and prevent harm emerges as the more persuasive and morally compelling stance. By advocating for a paradigm shift towards a more inclusive and compassionate worldview, Singer challenges us to confront our ethical responsibilities in a complex and interconnected world where the alleviation of suffering transcends individual causation to embody a shared commitment to global justice and human dignity.
