Peter Singer, a philosopher, emphasizes the moral obligation of affluent individuals to combat global poverty based on the principle that suffering from lack of basic needs is bad and can be prevented without major personal sacrifice. He argues for a structured approach to donations, suggesting specific percentages based on income levels, while utilizing analogies to illustrate his points. The document also encourages discussions on the acceptance and implications of Singer's arguments regarding utilitarianism and personal responsibility.

1. PETER SINGER ON
AFFLUENCE &
GLOBAL POVERTY
PHIL 102, SUMMER 2015
CHRISTINA HENDRICKS
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Except images licensed otherwise, this
presentation is licensed CC BY 4.0

2. PETER SINGER
Australian, now at Princeton University and
University of Melbourne (Australia)
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=gVViICWs4d
M

3. HOW SINGER OFTEN ARGUES
Starts by setting out certain principles and
assumptions that will be widely accepted
Then shows that what follows
from these has important
implications for how we live
Remind you of anyone?

4. THE BASIC ARGUMENT
(FROM “FAMINE, AFFLUENCE & MORALITY”
ARTICLE)
1. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and
medical care are bad”
2a. If we can prevent something bad from happening
without sacrificing anything of comparable moral
significance, morally we should do so
2b. …without sacrificing anything morally significant…
3. Many of use can prevent something bad from
happening without sacrificing anything of
comparable moral significance or anything morally
significant (through donating money, e.g.)
So, those of us who fall under (3) morally ought to help
prevent the things mentioned in (1)

5. IMPLICATIONS
How much
to give?
Draw line btwn
morally
required,
prohibited, and
supererogatory
differently
We should be
“working full
time to relieve
great
suffering”
(“Famine”)

6. Comfortably off people
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))

7. RELATION TO UTILTARIANISM
Singer’s argument supposed to be
acceptable to anyone, I think, not just
utilitarians
But how does utilitarianism play a role in
his argument?

8. THE ANALOGIES
Child in a pond, Dora and the homeless
boy, Bob & his Bugatti
Why use both a logical argument and
analogies?

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

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

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

12. 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/

13. GROUPS
After discussing them further in class, what
do you think of Singer’s arguments in these
texts?
• If you disagree with his conclusions, how
could you criticize his arguments or
analogies?
• Be as specific as you can about what,
exactly, you would criticize in his
argument or analogies
http://is.gd/PHIL102Singer

14. LC POLL ON SINGER, AGAIN
Curious if the distribution of views on Singers’
arguments has changed since before we
talked about them in class…