Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Opinions on Peter Singer's global obligations?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Opinions on Peter Singer's global obligations?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was looking for some opinions on Peter Singer's idea's on our obligations to other less fortunate humans, do you all agree with the duties he provides as morally necessary? Why or why not?

@alex717,

alex717;38233 wrote:

I was looking for some opinions on Peter Singer's idea's on our obligations to other less fortunate humans, do you all agree with the duties he provides as morally necessary? Why or why not?

Are you going to give us a hint of what you are talking about (what are his ideas?) or are we just supposed to know this somehow?

@nameless,

Well i mean, their vaste, I wouldn't expect anyone to give a compulsive opinion, these things require personal sufficient analysis's to be rightfully opinionated. He has some very powerful work.

@alex717,

Is Peter Singer's idea on our obligations to less fortunate individuals similar to Kant's concept of duty? What are these duties that may or may not be morally necessary, which Singer provides?

@alex717,

I am assuming that the reference to Singer has to do with his book mentioned in this Wikipedia entry:Famine, Affluence, and Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or was the original question triggered by something else?

@jgweed,

Yes, I asked this question because of his essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

Is Peter Singer's idea on our obligations to less fortunate individuals similar to Kant's concept of duty? What are these duties that may or may not be morally necessary, which Singer provides?

Not really, he more provides guidelines of obligations to others such as living on marginal utility to be able to give to the less fortunate, he then eliminates distinctions between who deserves help, yada yada read the essay

@alex717,

alex717 wrote:

Not really, he more provides guidelines of obligations to others such as living on marginal utility to be able to give to the less fortunate, he then eliminates distinctions between who deserves help, yada yada read the essay

I will read the essay now that I know which one it is.

@alex717,

I think he really puts us on the spot and It really gave me a little shake. A lot of it is really necessary to some extents, I like where he went with this.

@alex717,

I don't think I agree with Singer due to how ineffective many relief efforts for 3rd world countries are. Most of the time the people do not get the supplies they need and surpluses of things they do not need. Until the system of support for the less fortunate improve, I don't see how people could be morally obliged to do something.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I don't think I agree with Singer due to how ineffective many relief efforts for 3rd world countries are. Most of the time the people do not get the supplies they need and surpluses of things they do not need. Until the system of support for the less fortunate improve, I don't see how people could be morally obliged to do something.

Sure, but he could argue that there isn't enough resources in the first place and if there was, the system would progress until it is more successful. A problem I have with it is that a lot of colonization/globalization caused these peoples suffering and it seems it should start with our government, not with us. However, I also think that we need to take things upon ourselves, even on a small scale, we do have duties to other humans, what exactly they are, need to be debated.

@alex717,

The global duties toward others I have a hard time grasping. I can see how governments of affluent countries should take notice, but on the individual level it makes far more sense to work in a soup kitchen, or donating to local charity. As soon as money and resources switches hands numerous time it ends up in pockets along the way and the good will becomes far less effective.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

The global duties toward others I have a hard time grasping. I can see how governments of affluent countries should take notice, but on the individual level it makes far more sense to work in a soup kitchen, or donating to local charity. As soon as money and resources switches hands numerous time it ends up in pockets along the way and the good will becomes far less effective.

But, if we were to conclude that we do have an obligation to give to charity, is the idea that we don't know were are money is actually going enough to excuse us from the duty itself?

@alex717,

This is why the localized charity make far more sense. The money can be seen in action.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

This is why the localized charity make far more sense. The money can be seen in action.

Ok, so under the assumption that we as humans do have a duty to give to others consistently even if it is detrimental to our own level/amount of commodities, you feel that local charities should be given to rather then charities across sea's, because we are more certain the money will be used for its original intention.
Now, lets introduce the current problem, our government does give to our poor, we have a lot of public outlets to deal with our problems at home, and it seems THEY ignore some major places that are much more fubar. Does this mean we need to evaluate who needs the help more and who is already doing what where? For example, if there is all this government financed help in New Orleans, but our close neighbor Mexico is getting raped by globalization (assuming that you agree with that) should we instead give to Mexico considering nobody is touching their problems? But then we have Africa, further then Mexico, which has easily proven to be the most fubar. So should distance determine who we give to? Assuming we would have the same doubts about where our money is going to Mexico and Africa. So when it is concluded that Africa needs it much more. Should we then give to Africa rather then Mexico? Even though Mexico is closer?

Note: take your time, sorry that post is really choppy, im philo'd out ATM haha

@alex717,

Charity, as I know it, involves not taking more than your share of the resources.

After that, there would be no 'needy' underclass left to offer a bit of your excesses in order to feel better about hogging the resources; guilt money or ego strokes...

But it certainly won't upset the old applecart with the 'traditional' view of charity. We don't have to sacrifice our wealth (or comfort) and can alse 'feel good' about ourselves (bottom line). What better! Perhaps we can pray for the hungry and homeless (their own fault for not working hard enough, obviously) while pigging out on our Xmas feasts in our warm homes, drop a fiver into Santa's pot...

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Charity, as I know it, involves not taking more than your share of the resources.

After that, there would be no 'needy' underclass left to offer a bit of your excesses in order to feel better about hogging the resources; guilt money or ego strokes...

But it certainly won't upset the old applecart with the 'traditional' view of charity. We don't have to sacrifice our wealth (or comfort) and can alse 'feel good' about ourselves (bottom line). What better! Perhaps we can pray for the hungry and homeless (their own fault for not working hard enough, obviously) while pigging out on our Xmas feasts in our warm homes, drop a fiver into Santa's pot...

Sure we can feel good about ourselves if we just ignore it. If you were on your lawn, with your family, behind your suburban house with the chimney burning and saw across the lawn a field of African refugee's starving and being physically overcome by diseases. You surely wouldn't have this opinion. It damn well is our obligation to help other humans, because if you were in their spot, you'd know first hand why.

And NO. Charity is not, not taking more then your share, it's giving a part of your share to a place that has an insufficient share, because guess what? Even if nobody had excess wealth in American. People in Africa would still be starving, and I guarantee we would be using the wealth we had at the moment to get wealthier. Because WHAT DO YOU KNOW, we did that! At others expense.

And yea... African's are poor, diseased, and starving because it's "their own fault for not working hard enough, obviously".

@alex717,

alex717;38622 wrote:

Sure we can feel good about ourselves if we just...

Thanx for your 'emotional' response.
Unfortunately, I respond to rational, logical, respectful, intelligent posts. Your's fails to meet these requirements. Your 'emotional rant' has been noted, and ignored. As it really adds nothing to the conversation but that you 'feel emotionally' on the issue. So? No one can argue your feelings. Enjoy them.
Peace

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Thanx for your 'emotional' response.
Unfortunately, I respond to rational, logical, respectful, intelligent posts. Your's fails to meet these requirements. Your 'emotional rant' has been noted, and ignored. As it really adds nothing to the conversation but that you 'feel emotionally' on the issue. So? No one can argue your feelings. Enjoy them.
Peace

hahaha, 'cool dude'

@alex717,

To assist, I found some videos on Peter Singer so that we can better assess the original thread starters question.

YouTube - Peter Singer Interview (ABC Talking Heads) Part 1 of 3
YouTube - Peter Singer Interview (ABC Talking Heads) Part 2 of 3
YouTube - Peter Singer Interview (ABC Talking Heads) Part 3 of 3

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Opinions on Peter Singer's global obligations?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Opinions on Peter Singer's global obligations?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know