Peter Singer

The main similarity I see between Epicurean philosophy and the ethical theory of Singer lies within their use of marginal utility as the basis to lead a truly good life. Both seem to subscribe to a sort of "middle" way.

Peter Singer

I may add my own opinions on this later, but in the interim if the vertical rays of inspiration penetrate your extremities and sway your interior in such a way that thoughts occur, you should comment.

Peter Singer argues that we should donate most of our income to save lives in the poor countries. He makes his case by telling the story of a healthy young professor who, walking by a shallow pond, sees a small child in it about to drown. Surely, Singer says, the professor has a duty to save the child, even at the coast of dirtying his clothes. And similarly, he argues, we have a duty to send money to poverty relief organizations that can, for each few dollars they receive, save one more child from a painful hunger death. It is, in one way, a virtue of Singer's argument that it reaches even those who subscribe to the Purely Domestic Poverty Thesis, the view that the persistence of severe poverty is due solely to domestic causes. But by catering to this empirical view, Singer also reinforces the common moral judgment that the citizens and governments of the affluent societies, who he is addressing, are as innocent in regard to the persistence of sever poverty abroad as the professor is in regard to the child's predicament. -- Thomas Pogge

The argument Singer is making uses a simple argument based on the idea that if we have the power to prevent something bad from happening, it is our moral obligation to stop it. The transference of wealth from affluent nations into impoverished ones results in an overall higher good for all. Unhappiness by the loss of luxury is eased with the knowledge that the excess money is helping buy funds for the essential food needed to combat world hunger.

This idea of maximizing happiness through redistribution of wealth may be a flawed idea. Garrett Hardin argues that the help to the poorest will not lead to happiness, but in the end this method will result in the greatest misery for the most people.

But have we ever been able to aggregate and predict happiness? Can we even have an objective measure of pain and pleasure, or do emotional responses differ among various people? Benevolent intentions are easily detected, but benevolent theories or policies cannot be detected if we cannot predict and compare results accurately.