James Otteson: "Limits on Our Obligation to Give"
I. Summary of Singer’s View.
“[I]f
it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without
thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to
do it.”
II.
Objection to Singer: The immorality of failure to help in Pond Cases
does not entail the immorality of failure to help in Overseas Aid Cases.
In Overseas Aid Cases, there are uncertainties that do not apply to Pond Cases.
“[O]ne cannot know whether those who are suffering have other means of help available.”
“[O]ne cannot know precisely what help is required.”
“[O]ne cannot be certain whether the help one is contemplating would indeed be help.” (186)
III. Objection to Singer: His account
of duties of beneficence fails to cohere with a plausible account,
namely one suggested by Adam Smith.
Smith’s distinction: Justice vs. Virtue
The
Essence of Justice: “do not invade another person’s life, do not
impinge on another person’s liberty, and do not transgress on another
person’s property.” (195-96)
Virtue:
“[V]irtue requires indefinitely many positive actions, all
situation-specific and guided by an overall picture of ‘virtue’ though
not by precise rules.” (196)
IV.
Objection to Singer: He bases his conclusions on appeals to our
intuitions. But our intuitions undermine the stronger version of his
principle.
Back to
Syllabus