Lecture notes for PHIL 102 at the University of British Columbia, Fall 2013. The students had read: 1. Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence and Morality” (1972), available here: http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/1972—-.htm 2. Singer, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” (New York Times Magazine, 1999): http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

1. PHIL 102, Fall 2013
Christina Hendricks

2. Peter Singer
Australian, now at Princeton University
Clip from a documentary called Examined Life, giving an
overview of Singer’s views on poverty and ethical
treatment of animals
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVViICWs4dM

3. How Singer argues
for poverty relief
 Starts by setting out certain principles and
assumptions that he thinks will be widely
accepted
 Then shows that what follows from these has
important implications for how we live
 A bit like Socrates in that respect!

4. The basic argument
How does he argue for the claim that we ought to be
helping those in need more than we are?
1. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and
medical care are bad” (“Famine”)
2. “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from
happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of
comparable moral significance, we ought, morally, to
do it” (“Famine”)
Weaker version of 2: same as above, except “without
sacrificing anything morally significant”

5. The basic argument
3. It is in our power to prevent suffering and death from
lack of food, shelter, and medical care without
sacrificing anything of moral significance (weak
version), by donating money we would have used on
morally insignificant things to help those in need
Therefore, we ought, morally, to donate money we would
otherwise use on morally insignificant things to help
those in need
-- this is a moral obligation, not just something it would
be nice to do

6. The strong version
Singer thinks the strong version of premise 2 is the
correct one, which would require:
 “we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal
utility—that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would
cause as much suffering to myself or my dependent as I
would relieve by my gift” (“Famine”)
He doesn’t argue here for why the strong version is
the one we ought to accept, but consider: do you
value new computer, clothes over lives of
children?

7. A moderate proposal
In his most recent book (The Life You Can Save), Singer
notes that asking people to give as much as the
strong version would require may not actually produce
the best outcome
—it may lead them to ignore you and do nothing, feel
they can’t possibly live up to the standard and give up
 Moderate versions:
 Comfortably off people give 10% of income (“The Singer
Solution to World Poverty”)
 Sliding scale: 5% for those doing quite well ($100,000 to
$150,000 U.S.), more for those with higher
incomes, less for those with less (The Life You Can
Save, 2009)

8. The analogies
In addition to the logical argument given at the
beginning, Singer also provides several
analogies
Why use both forms of argument?
Is one more effective than another, or better to
have both?

9. The analogies
“She Summons Ducks,” Flickr photo by Peter Lindbergh, licensed CC-BY

10. Philosophy experiments site
Before doing the readings, I asked you to go through
these questions to see how you would respond to the
kinds of situations Singer asks us to think about.
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/Default.as
px

11. The analogies
“Dogs Get Better Treatment, Homeless Boy, Jakarta
Flickr photo shared by DanumurthiMahendra, licensed CC-BY

12. The analogies
BugattiVeyron Grand Sport Red/Black, Flickr photo shared by Axion
23, licensed CC-BY

13. Acting on arguments
“What is the point of relating philosophy to public (and
personal) affairs if we do not take our conclusions
seriously? In this instance, taking our conclusion
seriously means acting on it.” (“Famine”)
The Life You Can Save website, with a calculator for how
much you should give, a pledge to give that much,
and suggested charities that have been researched:
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/