In class weekly notes Ethics
In class weekly notes Ethics PHIL 160
Popular in Introduction to Ethics
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Megan Hansel on Saturday April 30, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 160 at Kansas taught by Lara Giordano in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 18 views. For similar materials see Introduction to Ethics in PHIL-Philosophy at Kansas.
Reviews for In class weekly notes Ethics
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 04/30/16
April 27 2016 Intro to Ethics Singer= modified Utilitarianism Singer’s Conclusion: We are obligated to give to where we are reduced to subsistence level Duty and charity can’t be maintained We need to give the money away and if we don’t it is wrong WE LIVE WITH THE WRONG MORAL VALUES Counter Argument: It is too drastic revision of our moral scheme…. People couldn’t actually do this without a backlash or a moral break down o Singers reply: Requires “too much” = descriptive claim that has no effect on the moral rightness of what Singer’s conclusion If we come to live in society where it is common for people to give away a lot of their income, then it will become normal Utilitarian understanding would make us donate our lives or money to service others in need o Singer’s reply: Yes, this is asking us to devote out life to service but that isn’t a moral conflict Famine relief= government’s job If the citizen’s give their life to service, then the government will stop giving help to famine relief Ethics April 25 2016 Peter Singer: 1970 Bhola Cyclone o “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” written in 1971 Money= morality o How much money is used to help others shows how moral one is or how much someone cares Can we justify how we live perfectly fine everyday while others are starving and dying at the same time? o No we cannot justify them, we need to change in order to be moral. 2 fundamental assumptions: “I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (page 270) o This isn’t contradicting or wrong according to the majority of people “If it is our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (page 270) (2 principles) Compared to Utilitarianism: It isn’t asking us to create the maximum amount of happiness or do anything that could hurt us morally… he is just asking us to do what we can when we can Notes about this theory: Physical or geographic location of those suffering definitely play a part in our feeling of need to help, however this has no moral significance Argument 3: If I am aware of a bad situation and am knowledgeable of what would count as help, then it doesn’t matter how close or distant this is to me Because of technology, we live in a “global village” and are knowledgeable of instances of famine and suffering take place half-way around the world What other people are doing shouldn’t effect if you should do something or not o If someone was in trouble and no one was helping him doesn’t mean you shouldn’t help Argument 4: Not everyone will give 5 dollars so you should give more than 5 dollars Counter argument for premise 4: If too much money is given from people then the tables will turn so those in poverty may not be in poverty anymore but now those who gave money are suffering due to giving their money away