the duty of beneficence. everyday ethics what people say “do unto others as you would have them do...
TRANSCRIPT
The Duty of Beneficence
Everyday Ethics
What people say
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Me
Family
Friends
Community Strangersfar away
Everyday EthicsWhat people really believe
Some facts:Over 10 million children die each year from easily preventable causes: disease, malnutrition, bad drinking water.
•3 million die from dehydrating diarrhea.
Treatment: a packet of oral rehydration salts. Cost:
15 cents each.
•1 million die from measles
One effective treatment, even for kids who haven’t been vaccinated: Vitamin A capsules. Cost: 10 cents each.
•3.5 die from pneumonia
Treatment: antibiotics Cost: 25 cents each.
For $17 per child, UNICEF can vaccinate a child against measles, polio, diptheria, whooping cough, tetanus, and tuberculosis.
But what does it really cost to save a life?
The cost of giving a typically sick two-year-old child in the third world a 90% chance of living to be 21:
$188Source: Peter Unger, Living High and Letting Die (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996)
Two arguments that we have an extensive duty to help:
1. The Child in Front of Us and the Envelope
2. Singer’s Argument
The Child in Front of Us and the Envelope
1. It is wrong not to help the child in front of us.
2. There is no relevant difference between failing to help the child in front of us and failing to respond to the UNICEF plea.
3. Therefore, it is equally wrong not to respond to the UNICEF plea.
The Child in Front of Us and the Envelope
Why the two cases seem different, even though they’re not:
•The big psychological impact of seeing the child in front of us, compared with the small psychological impact of the envelope
•The phenomenon of grouping
•The scattering effect
The Child in Front of Us and the Envelope
1. If we could prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths without giving up anything of comparable moral importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.
Singer’s Argument
Objection: Singer’s Argument demands too much.
In particular, the first premise is too demanding.
Singer’s reply: OK, I’ll change it.
1. If we could prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths without giving up anything of comparable moral importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.
1. If we could prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths without giving up anything of comparable moral importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.
1. If we could prevent something bad from happening, by sacrificing only luxuries that we don’t really need, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths without giving up anything of comparable moral importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.
1. If we could prevent something bad from happening, by sacrificing only luxuries that we don’t really need, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths without giving up anything of comparable moral importance.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.
1. If we could prevent something bad from happening, by sacrificing only luxuries that we don’t really need, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths by giving up new neckties, perfume, expensive wine, and so on.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.
1. If we could prevent something bad from happening, by sacrificing only luxuries that we don’t really need, then we ought, morally, to do so.
2. It is bad for children to die from malnutrition or from easily preventable diseases.
3. We could prevent at least some of those deaths by giving up new neckties, perfume, expensive wine, and so on.
4. Therefore we ought, morally, to do so.
The Six Most Common Responses to Singer’s Argument
The Six Most Common Responses
#1
“Oh my goodness, children dying of starvation! That’s so terrible, I hate even to think about it! Let’s go have lunch.”
The Six Most Common Responses
#2
“Why should we be so concerned with people in foreign countries, when there is so much need right here at home?”
The Six Most Common Responses
#3
“Why me? Other people have a lot more money than I have.”
The Six Most Common Responses
#4
“The government should take care of it.”
The Six Most Common Responses
#5
“Those so-called relief agencies just waste our money . . .”
U.S. Committee for UNICEFUnited Nations Children’s Fund333 East 38th StreetNew York, NY 10016
Oxfam America26 West StreetBoston, MA 02111
The Six Most Common Responses
#6
“The real problem is over-population. Keeping people alive today just creates a greater problem for tomorrow .”
