Quote:
Quote by: Kamehameha34  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. |
The affluent can prevent suffering.
The affluent should prevent suffering.
Regardless of whether or not past attempts at help fail or the expected efficacy of a certain way of giving fails, one thing remains constant according to the argument: the affluent should prevent suffering.
Now, I suppose Singer's argument has many implied premises. As far as giving DI goes, it should be clear that money can be spent on resources, and since DI is money, DI can be spent on resources. It should also be clear that much suffering is due to lack of resources; Singer was writing concerning a Bangladeshi famine, so that resource needed is food. That suffering could be thereby lessened by more resources, which is what giving does.
As I mentioned before, Singer actually argues for more than just giving monetary DI, but other disposable resources such as time and efforts. But still, DI is something that we
can give by definition, so he argues that we
ought to give it because it should prevent suffering. If there are obstacles to that happening, such as apathetic citizens or corrupt receiving governments, then in order to fulfill our obligation to prevent suffering, we should work to ensure that those obstacles are absent.
If the affluent shrug off this moral obligation thinking it is something impractical or something the government alone should be doing, then according to Singer, they are doing wrong. Shrugging it off is a fool's game.
Quote:
Quote by: Osborn F Enready There is no "we".
"I" may choose to donate to worthwhile causes, because "I" feel that cause is worthy.
Charity is a fine thing as an individual act.
Its a vile and despicable thing when forced via taxation and wealth redistribution. |
Indeed, making the decision to donate is an individual, independent decision, just as the decision to do right/wrong is an individual, independent decision. I think it should be a sincere effort. If it was forced, maybe a favorable end consequence of less suffering still ensues, but there is yet another cost of liberty, which is not good.
But when I say "we," I mean that the group of affluent individuals who can prevent suffering all have the moral obligation to prevent suffering. Whether or not each does is matter of whether or not each does what they ought to do.