EMP – Egoism & Famine/Poverty / “Singer
Solution to World Poverty” AND/or “Famine, Affluence and Morality” .. where the
pond/fountain case came from
THERE WAS A POWERPOINT ON THIS; YOU HAD A
HANDOUT; THE ARGUMENT WAS STATED PRETTY CAREFULLY, SO I’D LIKE YOU TO RESTATE IT CAREFULLY:
-
What’s
the theory called ethical
egoism? *OUGHT*
-
What’s
psychological egoism? * IS * /
-
How are
ethical egoism and psychological egoism different?
Singer’s argument:
What is “absolute poverty”? …
What is Singer’s conclusion? What are some conclusions that we might
reasonable believe Singer argues for, on the basis of what we read?
What conclusion did we consider in this
class? That is, what
conclusion did we think regarding whether YOU might be obligated to do
this action? $10 a month..
What premises did Singer give in favor of
that conclusion?
THIS IS CLOSE, BUT NOT EXACTLY what he
said.. :
If your needs are met and you have excess resources, then you are
obligated to give those extra resources to others in need.
Your needs are met .
You have excess resources.
Therefore, you are obligated to give those extra resources to others in
need.
Conclusions:
Raised and responded to a good bunch of
objections, all in logically valid form.
We thought about whether these objections
would be sound arguments or whether at least one premise would be false.
What’s a counterexample? What kind of premises can you use a
counterexample to try to show it to be false? They really only apply to
premises like these:
n All A’s are B’s.
n If x is an A, then X is a B.
n Any A is a B.
H is unnatural.
All unnatural actions are wrong.
Therefore, H is wrong.
Sometimes you can save someone’s life for
less than $10.
Meat dishes are more common than non-meat
dishes. T? F?
o EMP Utilitarianism – 2 chapters
§ Euthananasia / mercy killing : argument
from James Rachels in “Active and passive euthanasia”
Passive E? Active? Voluntary?
Involuntary? Non-voluntary?
§ Drugs .. Michael Huemer’s arguments (RTD
and online). .. Michelle Alexander
When would SOME drug use be immoral and should be illegal, according to
Huemer?
Why, according to Huemer, is
most drug use not immoral and should be legal?
n Either nobody is harmed.
n Or anyone harmed is harmed no more than when they are harmed by activities that are
legal.
n AND people have a natural right to their
bodies and so a natural right to use drugs.
§ Animals .. Singer’s “All animals are equal,”
Animal Liberation
·
Principle
of equality .. equal consideration of similar interests..
·
Speciesists
; Species-ism..
§
§
§ John Simmon’s “Reasonable Humans and
Animals”: WHAT'S HIS ARGUMENT?
o EMP 2
chapters on Kant’s ethics and capital punishment: we did not discuss anything from
these; thus, fairness suggests that you / ya’ll should not be quizzed on them. Fairness
would allow some bonus question(s) from these chapters.
METHODS
QUESTION – WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING? HOW HAVE WE BEEN DOING IT?
No comments:
Post a Comment