Singer : The Relief of Global Suffering

Laura & Nick



A: (Stating the argument) Singer says:

  1. Suffering and death from lack of food/shelter is a bad thing

  2. We have a moral duty to stop bad things happening when we can do so without "sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance"


To expand on (2):

  1. My duty to act is not affected by how far I am from the bad thing

  2. My duty to act is not affected by whether others are acting morally


There are two conclusions these premises lead to:

  1. ("Strong") We must keep giving until we ourselves are at the same level as those who we are trying to help


Singer does propose a more pragmatic option:

  1. ("Moderate") We must keep giving until we have to sacrifice something "morally significant"


B: ("Practical" objections) This is all very well, but not practical:

  1. (3) is unreasonable: it denies our innate sense of responsibility towards our nearest and dearest

  1. (4) is unreasonable: it's not realistic to expect people to make decisions without any reference to others: we don't exist in a vacuum.

  1. giving money may just make the problem worse (money may end up going to the oppressors in a cruel regime)

  1. Giving loads of money may upset our own economy and in the long term cause more harm than good.

  1. Giving lots of money to famine-stricken countries, beyond that needed for the immediate crisis just gives them an excuse not to sort themselves out; the problems will never be fixed if they can always rely on us

  1. You're probably never going to fix the problem in any case, even if you were to give everything you own, it will make relatively little difference.


A: (response to "practical" objections) Those are just excuses for not helping. The fact that the argument has awkward implications doesn't invalidate it. Even if it is difficult or uncomfortable to act in this way, you can't deny that the argument shows that you ought to:

  1. Saying (3) and (4) are "unreasonable" doesn't mean they're not true. The fact that we think them unreasonable, is simply an indication that it is not a way of living desirable to those who live basically in comfort, surely if we were starving we would not have the same view on what is, or is not 'reasonable'.

  1. In the case of (9) this doesn't absolve you from your duty to try to help: maybe you should take action to help overthrow the regime as well as giving money, or take action by becoming an aid worker, Singer does not specify that giving money is the only way to help.

  1. (10) may be true, but as (4) says this isn't an issue, and in any case, the very small amount of people who do actually give in this way won't affect GDP

  1. (11) sounds a bit of a cop-out, how can you use this kind of thinking as a basis for morality, it seems like a pretty lame excuse not to help, like you're actually helping them, by not helping them. which doesn't make much sense!

  1. We may fail (12), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try- every little helps?


B: ("Philosophical" objections) OK, but the argument is in any case flawed:

  1. Some people take disagree with (1), seeing suffering as "part of God's plan" or "character-forming", in defence of suffering one may look to Irenaeus, who specifically believed that the human soul cannot be completed without the presence of suffering and evil. It's a cop-out for Singer to say that he won't argue with such people, since surely they need an answer, his dismissal shows a flaw in his argument.

  1. What is the measure of "bad things" in (2)? When does something start to be "bad" enough to warrant our involvement? Or does Singer expect us to help ALL those in anyway less well off than ourselves? More to the point, Singer leaves us no way of specifying who we should help- we cannot help everyone, even if we wanted to.

  1. How does this answer the moral sceptic? Why should he agree with (2)? The moral sceptic won't buy this argument, as there is nothing in it for him, quite the reverse in fact.

  1. How long-term a view should we take? How far ahead to we have to look to see whether our actions are helping or hindering? Of should we take no consequence of this either (as well as proximity and what others are doing)?