Peter Singer - ordinary people are evil

The video script discusses Peter Singer's influential 1972 paper, 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality,' which challenges the conventional moral outlook on our obligations towards global famine. Singer argues that our current attitudes are fundamentally wrong and that affluent individuals have a moral duty to restructure their lives to address these issues. The paper is persuasive and suggests a complete societal and personal overhaul to achieve moral living. It introduces the concept of 'supererogatory' actions, which are beyond the call of duty, contrasting them with 'obligatory' actions, which are required.

The script delves into the role of organizations like Oxfam and UNICEF in addressing global famines. It contrasts the common perception of charitable giving as a supererogatory act with Singer's thesis that donating to such causes is obligatory. Singer posits that not donating when one can afford to do so is morally wrong, akin to letting someone die when you could have saved them. He argues that the societal norm of considering charity as optional is unjustifiable and that we should instead view it as a moral imperative.

The video outlines Singer's logical argument for the moral obligation to donate to famine relief. The argument is structured around four premises: (1) We are morally required to prevent very bad outcomes without sacrificing anything of moral significance; (2) Hunger, disease, and death are very bad; (3) Luxuries we spend money on are not of moral significance; and (4) Donating to relief agencies can prevent suffering and death. The conclusion drawn is that we are morally obligated to donate money that would otherwise be spent on luxuries to those in need.

The script emphasizes the radical nature of Singer's conclusion, which suggests that most people are doing something morally wrong by not donating to famine relief. It points out that this view is a significant departure from common societal norms and that even though Singer's argument is compelling, it is not widely adopted. The video also mentions Singer's personal commitment to his philosophical beliefs, donating a significant portion of his income to relief agencies.

Singer uses the analogy of a child drowning in a shallow pond to support his argument. He suggests that if one can save the child without significant moral sacrifice, they are morally obligated to do so. This example is used to argue that the principle should extend to global issues like famine, where one's contribution can prevent significant suffering without morally significant sacrifice to themselves.

The script addresses potential objections to Singer's argument, such as the physical proximity to those in need and the presence of others who could help. Singer argues that with modern communication and charitable infrastructure, proximity is no longer a morally relevant factor. Furthermore, the presence of others does not absolve an individual of their moral duty unless those others actually step in to help. If others do not act, the obligation remains on the individual who can prevent the suffering.

The video discusses the extent of the moral obligation to donate, questioning whether it requires giving up all luxuries or reducing one's standard of living to match those suffering from famine. Singer considers both a weaker principle, which requires giving up some luxuries, and a stronger principle, which demands significant sacrifice. He also addresses the concern that charitable donations might disincentivize government aid, arguing that individual donations are unlikely to have such an impact.

The final paragraph addresses the objection that donating to famine relief only postpones future famines. Singer counters this by arguing that saving lives currently is not made less morally imperative by the possibility of future disasters. He likens this to saving a drowning child, where the potential for future harm to the child does not negate the duty to save them in the present. The radical conclusion of Singer's argument is that failing to donate to famine relief is morally equivalent to letting a child drown due to a reluctance to soil one's clothes.