Arthurs Criticism of Singer To Clarify a Misunderstanding - - PDF document

Arthur's Criticism of Singer 1 Ethics

Arthur’s Criticism of Singer To Clarify a Misunderstanding

• Consequentialism (utilitarianism) and

nonconsequentialism are both theories of moral

• bligation.
• So both theories claim certain actions are moral
• bligations.
• Put another way, both theories discuss which

actions are “right” (correct) and which are wrong.

• Not to be confused with claiming that people have

certain moral rights.

Actions as “right” and moral “rights”

• Utilitarian: an action is right (and a moral
• bligation to perform) if it is the act likely to

produce the best results (consequences).

• Not utilitarian: every person has certain basic

moral rights.

• Why not utilitarian? If everyone has a moral right

to something, then any action violating that right is immoral, regardless of the consequences.

Arthur's Criticism of Singer 2 Ethics

Singer’s “Greater Moral Evil” Rule

• CMI: “If it is in our power to prevent

something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do so.

• Arthur calls this the “greater moral evil

rule.” We are entitled to keep our earnings

• nly if there is no way to use them to

prevent a greater evil. Arthur: This Is “One Part of Morality”

• Underlying idea: “Like amounts of

suffering or happiness are of equal importance, regardless of who is experiencing them.”

• Arthur: This is one important part of ethics.
• But it leaves out other parts...

Entitlements

• Singer’s principle ignores an important part
• f morality: entitlements

– Rights – Desert

• Rights: we have a right to our bodies even

when giving up the right would relieve great suffering or create happiness.

Arthur's Criticism of Singer 3 Ethics

Rights are Not Absolute

• Don’t oversimplify Arthur. Just as he claims

CMI (greater moral evil) rule alone is insufficient, he also claims rights/desert alone not enough.

• Sometimes we are morally obligated to give

up our rights, even to our bodies, but not “when the cost to us is substantial.”

Desert

• One “entitlement” is rights. The other is

desert: some people deserve benefits (or punishments) not because of future consequences but because of past actions.

• Example of industrious and lazy farmer.

Even if better consequences by giving money to lazy farmer, the industrious farmer may deserve to keep greater wealth.

Like Rights, Desert Not Absolute

• Arthur: “Perhaps [the hard-working

farmer’s] deserving the product of his labor is outweighed by the greater need of his lazy neighbor, or perhaps it isn’t.”

• Arthur: both important: CMI and

entitlements.

• Arthur a nonconsequentialist, but not

absolute rights. Prima facie rights and deserts.

Arthur's Criticism of Singer 4 Ethics

Our “Commonly Shared Morality”

• Arthur: “our commonly shared morality

requires that we ignore neither consequences nor entitlements.” (p. 775)

• But is our “commonly shared morality” the

right one? Arthur himself: “unless we are moral relativists, the mere fact that entitlements are an important part of our moral code does not in itself justify such a role [my emphasis].”

“Commonly Shared Morality”

• Arthur: “Singer...can perhaps best be seen

as a moral reformer advocating the rejection

• f rules which provide for distribution

according to rights and desert.” [YES!]

• Arthur: at one time our “commonly shared

morality” allowed slavery, so clearly it’s not always correct.

• So why should we think it (rather than

Singer) is correct now?

Arthur on Requirements of a Moral Code

• It must be practical.
• It must be able to gain the support of almost

everyone.

• It must not assume people are better than

they are.

(from p. 776)

Arthur's Criticism of Singer 5 Ethics

Idealistic vs Realistic Morality

• Should morality establish the standards we should

strive for? (Idealistic)

• Arthur’s “realistic” or “practical” morality may be

suitable for those recommending policies but not for pure moral philosophers.

• What should be the role of moral thinkers and

philosophers?

• Maybe important to distinguish between peresonal

morality and social policy.

What About the Rights of the Poor?

• OK, imagine Arthur is correct about rights

and entitlements. What about the rights of the poor? Aren’t they even more important?

• Recall Aquinas (quoted by Singer, p. 416):

“whatever a man has in superabundance is

• wed, as a matter of natural right, to the

poor for their sustenance.” [my emphasis]

Negative and Positive Rights

• If someone has a right, someone else has an
• bligation? To do what?
• To respect the right.
• Negative rights imply negative obligations;

positive rights imply positive obligations.

• A negative obligation is an obligation NOT

to do something; a positive obligation requires doing something.

Arthur's Criticism of Singer 6 Ethics

Negative and Positive Rights

• What are some examples of negative rights?
• Remember, these can be respected by doing

nothing.

• What are some examples of positive rights?
• Are there positive rights? Aquinas claims

giving to the poor is a natural right that the poor have.

Arthur on Rights

• Disagreeing with Aquinas, Arthur claims

that the only natural rights we have just because we are human beings are negative rights.

• Arthur: positive rights come about only

through contracts or commitments.

• This is a crucial debate in understanding

issues of economic justice in our own country.