![]() Singer is a utilitarian - a school of philosophy that holds that actions should be evaluated based on their consequences, and that you ought to do whatever maximizes overall utility or well-being - but he doesn’t expect his readers to share that worldview. ![]() ![]() It’s a compelling argument, precisely because it’s not all that complicated. But if you don’t think that matters (and Singer doesn’t), then shouldn’t we be, well, saving them? They aren’t right in front of us the children who die if we ignore them are mostly far away, born to families we might never meet. But Singer contends that our world already presents opportunities to save lives that are about as straightforward and low cost as his hypothetical. Ought you, morally, to save the child?Īlmost everyone says yes. You could save them, but doing so would ruin your suit. ![]() His original argument, which he introduced in a paper published in 1972, goes like this: Imagine you’re on your way to an important meeting, when suddenly you see a child drowning in a pond you’re walking by. In 2009, the philosopher Peter Singer published a book called The Life You Can Save, which contained a restatement of one of his most famous arguments: that you should help people, if it’s not exceptionally costly to you. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |