| His argument is flawed.
1. Suffering is bad
2. If we can prevent bad, then we should prevent bad
3. Therefore we should give all/most of our disposable income to those who are suffering
Even if we accept all of the premises as true, the conclusion isn't a necessary logical consequence.
Sterilized, his argument is the following:
1. A = B.
2. If C can prevent B, then C should prevent B.
3. C should D.
His mistake is assuming that D = notB, or that donating disposable income automatically equals less suffering. We call that fallacy of the four terms. I'd ask for evidence that the amount of donations towards the impoverished has a direct correlation to a decrease in suffering, but I'm not going to. It's a fool's game. |