Singer Workbook Notes

Singer tries to convince readers to donate extra money they have to charities because not doing so
means they contribute to the killing of innocent impoverished children. He believes that money spent on
luxury items should go to overseas aid agencies. Singer presents two extreme analogies regarding
American consumers obligations to the worlds poverty-stricken regions. Overall Singer tries to provide a
solution that can end world hunger.

New phrases and words:

 Follow-the-crowd ethics – go along with what the majority is doing.

Singers argument: why we ought to give to charities?

1. Limited access to food or adequate medical care resulting in suffering and death.
2. If we can prevent bad events from occurring, we ought to without sacrificing anything of equal
moral importance.
3. We can lessen the amount of poverty by giving to charities without dampening our own
standard of living.
4. Therefore, it is in our duty to donate to people suffering from poverty.

Brazilian Film Analogy: A retired schoolteacher, Dora, has a chance to earn $1,000. She is hoping to
purchase a TV. However, before getting the money she has to convince a 9-year old homeless boy to
come with her to an anonymous address where he will get adopted by foreigners. Dora fulfils the
requirement and receives the money and spends it on a TV. Later she finds out the boy is too old for
adoption, resulting in him being killed for his organs. Fortunately, Dora decides to go back for the boy.

Bob and the Bugatti Analogy: Bob a soon to be retiree buys a Bugatti. Bob not only loves to drive his car
but enjoys its rising market value. Thus, guaranteeing him financial stability after selling it when he
retires. Although one day his car is parked by a railroad track where a runaway train is coming in hot
towards a young child. Bob has the chance to save the kid if he pulls the switch to the train cart however
if he does it would damage his Bugatti. Bob unfortunately does not flip the switch and the child dies
while his Bugatti is left unharmed.

 Singer presents these two scenarios to generate a response out of the reader. Preferably one
that condemns Bob’s actions and praises Dora’s actions. Singer recognizes the nature between
 both Bob’s and Dora’s relationship with the children were different. Although, Singer still
contends that both still should have done everything in their power to save the child.
 Singer further relates the Bob’s scenario to American consumers who do not donate to the poor
and condemns those who do this as failing to live a morally good life.
 Singer asserts that the location of those in need isn’t a valid reason to not provide help. It
doesn’t make a difference if the person was your neighbor down the street or a person
thousands of miles away.

Objections:

1. Other people are in the position to give money therefore, I am not obligated to give more than
my fair share.
a. Singer. We are obligated to donate more than our fair share.
2. Given the uncertainties involved in charity giving it isn’t guaranteed that our money will reach its
target.
a. Singer. The proposed $200 donation is a conservative estimate because it isn’t
guaranteed that the money will reach its target.
3. Expecting others to live up to moral responsibilities especially if the obligations require
sacrificing large items, is unrealistic.
a. Singer. It is better if we recognize our obligations without meeting them. However, it is a
disservice if you are ignorant towards potential obligations.
4. Foreign aid would be best handled by the government. Consequently, the burden would be
equally distributed amongst taxpayers.
a. Singer. That may be better but moral obligations are determined by fact in the real
world. In reality the government will not do much to help starving children. Therefore,
we are obligated to sacrifice unless the situation changes.

Singer has a valid argument but, in some ways, it is quite unrealistic. Here’s why:

 Singers argument imposes very high obligations that are too demanding
o It limits our freedom to choose how we spend our money
o It may require us to act against our own conscience
o Our fundamental moral value as persons aren’t recognized