Reply to DK: Peter Singer’s Perspective on Moral Responsibility

by | Feb 16, 2024 | philosophy

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 solution

Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell. 

In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.


This question has been answered

God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.

Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.

To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.

 

References

Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.

Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.

Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.

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.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer