The first tutorial this term will be next week on the problems of famine. I assume we all agree that famine is a bad thing, but why? Famine also cannot be divorced from poverty. Poverty itself is a problem, but do you hgave an obligation to help somone who has less than you (if that is how we measure poverty).
You will need to read Singer and O’Neill who put forward a utilitarian and a Kantian persepctive respectively (both available on Blackboiard). Also, before the dicusssion you need to consider Hardin’s analogy with the lifeboat (an extract is ion the tutorial booklet).
I find Singers arguments compelling except his requirement that I contribute enough to make up for all the people who dont donate, this seems unjust. If governments act with our consent (and lets face it,our money ) is this not a more equitable way to help? Also I still feel that moral action cannot be based on consequence, as the future is unknowable.
(Anonymous)
Singer’s argument is based on his deep seated radicalism about the act versus omission doctrine. Intuitively we feel that a person who kills a human being is worse (action) than a person who decides not to save a drowning human being (omission), but for a consequentialist the only difference is the intention and that, all thing sbeing equal, is not morally relevant (the harm caused is the same). If you see someone drowning, it is not an excuse for your omission if you point to someone else and say, “They didn’t help either.”
Of course, there are very good reasons to keep the act versus omission doctrine, but to convince Singer these should not be deonotological ones.