Peter Singer presents arguments on affluence and global poverty, asserting that affluent individuals have a moral obligation to assist those suffering due to lack of resources. He distinguishes between morally required actions and supererogatory actions, recommending that individuals donate a portion of their income to alleviate suffering. Singer's analogies highlight the moral implications of inaction in similar circumstances, urging a serious commitment to philanthropy and effective altruism.

1. PETER SINGER ON
AFFLUENCE &
GLOBAL POVERTY
PHIL 102, SPRING 2017
CHRISTINA HENDRICKS
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Except images licensed otherwise, this
presentation is licensed CC BY 4.0

2. TWO WAYS SINGER ARGUES IN
THESE ARTICLES
1. Argument from a principle he thinks we will
all accept (“Famine, Affluence & Morality”)
2. Argument from analogy (mostly in “The
Singer Solution”)
If morally we should do
or not do an act here
Morally we should do/not
do the same in a similar
situation
Then
Situation 1 Situation 2

3. ARGUMENT FROM
A PRINCIPLE

4. ARGUMENT FROM “FAMINE, AFFLUENCE &
MORALITY”
1. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and
medical care are bad”
2. (two versions of principle)
a. If we can prevent something bad from happening
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral
significance, morally we should do so (stronger)
b. …without sacrificing anything morally
significant… (weaker)
3. Many of us can prevent something bad from
happening without sacrificing anything of
comparable moral significance or even anything
morally significant
Therefore, those of us who fall under (3) morally ought
to help prevent the things mentioned in (1)

5. EVALUATING ARGUMENTS
Remember the steps in evaluating arguments
(can do these in either order):
1. Are the premises true?
2. If the premises are true, does the
conclusion follow with certainty or high
probability?
• Deduction & induction
1 2 3
conclusion

6. EVALUATING SINGER’S
ARGUMENT
Go to the document linked below and write
down your evaluation of the argument:
1. Premises true?
2. Conclusion follows with certainty or high
probability?
3. Anything else you think should be taken
into consideration when evaluating this
argument?
https://is.gd/phil102_singer
underscore

7. IMPLICATIONS
Draw line
between
morally
required &
supererogatory
differently
We should be
“working full time
to relieve great
suffering”
(“Famine”)
• Doesn’t have to
just be donating
money…

8. Comfortably off people
should give 10% of income
(“The Singer Solution to World
Poverty” (Singer 1999))
Creating bricks, Flickr photo shared by International
Disaster Volunteers, licensed CC BY 2.0
Donate clothes poster, Flickr photo shared by
Christian Guthier, licensed CC BY 2.0
5% for those doing quite well
($100,000 to $150,000 U.S.),
more for those with higher
incomes, less for lower
(The Life You Can Save (Singer 2009))

9. ARGUMENTS
FROM ANALOGIES

10. THE CHILD IN THE POND
“She Summons Ducks,” Flickr photo by Peter Lindbergh, licensed CC-BY

11. THE CHILD ON THE STREET
(DORA EXAMPLE)
“Dogs Get Better Treatment, Homeless Boy, Jakarta, Flickr photo shared by Danumurthi
Mahendra, licensed CC-BY

12. BOB AND HIS BUGATTI
Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport Red/Black, Flickr photo shared by Axion 23, licensed CC-BY

13. EVALUATING ARGUMENTS FROM
ANALOGY
Singer’s take the following form:
1. It is morally wrong to do action X in
situation A
2. If it is morally wrong to do X in A, then it is
morally wrong to do X in a similar situation,
B
Therefore, it is morally wrong to do X in B
Can ask if both premises are true, including
asking if the situations are similar enough for
(2)

14. RELATION TO UTILTARIANISM
Singer’s arguments are supposed to be
acceptable to anyone, not just utilitarians
But how does utilitarianism play a role in
his arguments?

15. 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 charities that have been
researched:
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/