Questions: Suppose someone’s family income is $200,000 per year and, moved by the plight of distant needy strangers they have read about, they give $50 dollars to a global disaster relief agency. Now say they to go to the Phillies’ game. But instead they could have donated another $50 dollars to charity, and another. The choice problem reiterates, and each time they find the money they could spend on themselves it would instead do more good if channeled to distant needy strangers, until they get down to a monthly income such that their next dollar, spent on themselves, would do more good than they could do by way of preventing suffering by donating to poverty and famine relief. Would you agree that you would have to follow this same process to live morally, or does it not have to be so extreme?
Do you agree with Singer that if you would save the drowning child and ruin a pair of new shoes, you should also be willing to do donate up to marginal utility to famine relief funds? … Or can you feel OK doing one and not the other?
Where do you think the cut-off is in terms of the amount? (How much should we reasonably donate? A certain percent?)
Do charity relief projects really do good in the long run? Or should we focus on long term alternatives like limiting population growth and educating people on birth control practices?
Ryo Ishiwaka He is also only 19 years old, very close in age to most of us, do you think this is something you would be able to do? Considering it is only the second year of your professional career? Would Singer say he is doing all that he can?
Do you agree that we need both care and justice to have a decent ethical world? Why?
Do you think if people adopted Baier’s care morality and justice that they would be more likely to follow Singer’s principle of charity as a moral duty?
Baier also talks about the importance of relationships between parents and their children and what it does for the ethics of care. She even asks “how will men ever develop an understanding of the “ethics of care” if they continue to be shielded or kept from that experience of caring for a dependent child?” Do you think it is realistic to believe that men could not develop ethics of care without caring for a child?
Do you think that if such an ethics of care were implemented and practiced by majority of the population and taken into consideration in law that the court system and juries would be more lenient to certain crimes? Since people would be theoretically more connected to others and would be more prone to “feel” for them, is it likely that more people would walk away innocent from court? Consider the example of stealing to feed one’s family. Or consider the example of Dexter (serial killer who kills murderers).