The Art of Philosophy #1: Our Responsibility?

[Cena's Little Helper]

Do I believe in helping the poor? Yes, I do, and I donate to a couple of causes. But, I will never donate to a cause in Africa. Singer seems to believe that it's best to donate to developing nations because of how much further the dollar will go there in helping the poor out. But, as I've argued in other threads before, economically, his argument is flawed.

It's my belief that, for an act to be considered morally good, it must not only be born out of good intentions, but it must also actually affect the individual or group that it was aimed at. So, it's not just enough for me to intend to give $300 to a starving child in some foreign, developing country; for my act to be considered morally good, it must also be the case that the child that I intended to give the $300 to actually gets the money I send to him. Unfortunately for this child, since he/she lives in a foreign, developing country, I run into the principal-agent problem, whereby I have to give him/her money through some agent (e.g., an INGO or their government) since it is not feasible for me to get on a plane and give it to him/her myself. But, the problem with most developing countries is that there's no rule of law, so, there are really no incentives in place for the agent I entrust the money to to actually give it to the child.

Don't get me wrong: there are some developing nations with good intentions that actually want to get themselves out of their state of destitution (e.g., India). But, I don't know of many African nations that are actually making much progress. Ultimately, I say that we forgive all of Africa's loans and set up fair trade agreements with its countries, but that's it. For the time being, I'm giving my money to those who I know will more than likely get it.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I am watching some TV right now, and the topic of Peter Singer came up.

Peter Singer said it is OK to abort a child until 20 days AFTER it is born. He was forced to apologize. He corrected himself and said that a child should be able to be aborted up until the point where he realizes there is a tomorrow, two years of age. This is the chair of the ethics department at Priceton.

He also said that a smart border collar is worth more than a ******ed child.

I don't understand how a man who claims that we have the obligation to help the less fortunate could say these things. This utilitarian ideal shows why the practice is outdated. Utilitarianism is truly a theory pushing the tyranny of the majority. It has changed dramatically from J.S. Mill, who claimed that the greatest good for the greatest number is what benefits the most people while causing less harm to the minority. Utility used to be about finding what maximized the benefits to society without causing harm.

Singer advocates deciding if the benefits outweigh the harms, and if the answer is yes, even if it's by one percent, then the action is moral. Furthermore, Singer feels that the only decision should be made on prima facie effects. There is too much change, according to Singer, to try and predict the future, so immediate benefits outweigh future harms.

This man is terrible, and Princeton should be shut down if they continue to employ this man.

 

[Razor]

I am watching some TV right now, and the topic of Peter Singer came up.

Oh god. He said something incredibly stupid, didn't he?

Peter Singer said it is OK to abort a child until 20 days AFTER it is born. He was forced to apologize.

As he should be. That's out and out murder, and that's not even arguable.

He corrected himself and said that a child should be able to be aborted up until the point where he realizes there is a tomorrow, two years of age.

...I suppose he's going by the idea that if you don't know there is a tomorrow, you don't know you have a life. Or, at least, your idea of a "life" doesn't go much beyond when you fall asleep.

This is the chair of the ethics department at Priceton.

Yeah...he is.

He also said that a smart border collar is worth more than a ******ed child.

Did he argue something about the Turing Test? It's the test put forth by...I think his name was Turing. No, Putnam. That's his name. Anyway, the Turing Test argues that unless you can perform a certain set of criteria, you're not a thinking, sentient being. Putnam thought it up to be used as criteria in judging the efficacy of Artificial Intelligence, and people have extrapolated it out to a rather fringe basis.

I don't understand how a man who claims that we have the obligation to help the less fortunate could say these things.

His argument for the basic sense of moral obligation doesn't extend into his beliefs about when a life is a life. In fact, his Principle is proven even more fluid with these admittedly flawed morals. We know he's wrong on this, but his principle still makes logical sense.

This utilitarian ideal shows why the practice is outdated. Utilitarianism is truly a theory pushing the tyranny of the majority. It has changed dramatically from J.S. Mill, who claimed that the greatest good for the greatest number is what benefits the most people while causing less harm to the minority. Utility used to be about finding what maximized the benefits to society without causing harm.

All true.

Singer advocates deciding if the benefits outweigh the harms, and if the answer is yes, even if it's by one percent, then the action is moral.

Well...it's of greater moral significance than what you're giving up. But that's arguing semantics. I get your point.

Furthermore, Singer feels that the only decision should be made on prima facie effects. There is too much change, according to Singer, to try and predict the future, so immediate benefits outweigh future harms.

That sounds like a man who doesn't wanna think too much before he acts.

This man is terrible, and Princeton should be shut down if they continue to employ this man.

Well, he admittedly has flawed views on when life begins. I'll give you that.