HGTC Ethnic Studies Luxuries and Comparable Moral Worth Questions

In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, etc., Peter Singer presents versions of the following argument.

1. Suffering and death from a lack of food, (drinkable) water, shelter, and proper medical care –especially when the victims of such are children– is terrible.

2. If one is able to prevent terrible things (like those described in reason 1) from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, then one is morally obligated to do so.

3. Most citizens of affluent nations (e.g., the US) are able to prevent numerous children from suffering and dying due to lacks of food, proper medical care, etc., without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth.  And, yet they choose not to.

4. Therefore, many/most citizens of affluent nations are immoral.

As one might suspect, many people tend to want to disagree with Singer’s conclusion (4). 

But, as noted in this week’s videos, successfully refuting/denying an argument’s conclusion requires that one provide evidence, reasons, etc., to think that one or more of the argument’s premises/reasons are mistaken, false, etc.  For Singer’s argument, reason 2 tends to be the most crucial “link” in the argumentative “chain”.  Without it, Singer’s argument would have no chance of reaching its conclusion.   

2. If one is able to prevent terrible things (like those described in reason 1) from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, then one is morally obligated to do so.

Singer’s defense of this reason is interesting.  He offers the famous/infamous ‘drowning baby scenario’.  In this scenario one is faced with a choice between (a) sacrificing one or more “luxury” items in order to save a baby from drowning or (b) not sacrificing such items and in turn allowing the baby to drown.  Singer asks, ‘Would it ever be morally okay to choose purchasing/owning/indulging in “luxury” items over saving a child’s life?  Those who tend to think that a child’s life is worth morally more than “luxury” items and that it would in turn be immoral to choose “luxury” over a child’s life are agreeing with reason 2. 

If one agrees/accepts reason 2, then it becomes near (but perhaps not completely) impossible to escape Singer’s conclusion.  Thus, the main challenge confronting anyone that would like to disagree with Singer’s conclusion tends to be finding a way to show that reason 2 is mistaken, false, etc.           

Questions:

1) Are there any “luxury” items, activities, etc., that seem to be “worth” more than a child’s life, health, and/or well-being?  Your reasons?

2) Does it seem immoral to choose “luxuries” over saving a child’s life, health, and/or well-being?  Your reasons?

3) Review the various objections and Singer’s responses considered in this week’s video and video outline.  Do each of Singer’s responses seem adequate?  If so, why so?  If not, why not?