lecture notes for phil 250

1. pmail: equality and motivation
Student: Singer says we should give around 10% of our income to
the absolute poor. It sounds like he is saying that we should try
and give as much as we can. I wonder where Singer draws the
line? What I mean, is he trying to suggest to Bill Gates that he
should sell him mansion(s) and move into an apartment? This seems
very anti-capitalist, and almost destroys the incentive for people to
come and 'make a living' in a north american economy, if morally
they are required to donate as much as they can to the poor. I
wonder how much of an effect this would have on our ambitions if
we were to give it all away as soon as we earned it? I don't
believe there would be half as many stock brokers (who have
highly stressful jobs that are crucial to the economy) if they
weren't able to enjoy the lifestyle their work allows for them. Or
even in that question, how many farmers would toil away, planting
extra fields if they weren't able to buy that big screen TV they've
had their eye on all year? This all seems to have pretty negative
implications for the future of the north american economy if
everyone was to follow Singer's suggestions.

2. pmail: Mill & Singer
Student: Mill claims that "No reason can be given why the general
happiness is desirable, expect that each person, so far as he
believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness."Singer
brings sentience into this, but ultimately is not this Singer's reason
for accepting preference satisfaction as fundamental to his theory?
DrC: I don’t think so, because I think that Mill is a Non-
Reductionist who believed that one’s life should be guided by a
master desire for happiness, whereas I take Singer to be a
Reductionist who dispenses with such a master desire in favour of
straightforward desire satisfaction. For Mill, each moment of one’s
life should be regarded as equally important, and the master desire
for happiness guides you towards acting so as to lead one’s life in
that way. Singer has no such commitment.

3. euthanasia and consent
Student: Singer’s argument for the right to
kill through doctor assisted suicide seems to
make sense. I think everybody has a right to
choose and judge when it is best for them to
come and go.
DrC: Don’t forget that Singer defends this
right at the “intuitive” level. It has no place
at the fundamental theoretical level of his
preference utilitarianism.

4. pmail: infanticide
Student: Singer makes me question what
happens to all the babies not under the
protection of an adult's love. Do they carry
no moral worth? How can Singer condemn
us for indulging in meat, when he believes it
is ok to commit infanticide for the parent's
convenience (pg. 154)?

5. pmail: disability
Student: In chapter 7, on pg. 189, Singer states that being disabled
is leading a worse life than being the default human because if we
found out that a pill caused severe birth defects, we would
discourage the mother to take it, thereby proving how we value
normality. This seems contrary to another chapter where he points
out that we cannot judge that "we cannot move automatically from
a preference from a pleasant life rather than an unpleasant one, to
a preference for a pleasant life rather than no life at all" because
we have no comparison to what having no life is like. In a similar
manner, we have never experienced disability and are only judging
it from the outside. How can we condemn all their experiences as
being less valuable?

6. pmail: potential revisited
Student: What bothered me about Singer's writing in this chapter
is not his formulation of the ethical behaviour we ought to
undertake towards other humans, in fact I presume that he is
correct about our ("our" being affluent individuals) need to provide
for the severely less fortunate, but, I find that he is inconsistent in
his theories about 'potentiality' (in general). In this chapter,
despite his acknowledment that "success cannot be guaranteed," he
holds that the potential for an increase in human pleasure by
providing for the poor is a substantial reason to do so. And yet, a
couple chapters earlier, we saw that a potential human life, which
may or may not yeild high amounts of pleasure, is not substantial
enough to stop a woman from having an abortion because it is
convenient to do so. Perhaps affluent people may see it as an
inconvenience to provide aid for "absolutely impoverished" people.
Is this an inconsistency I see as a result of my own
misinterpretation or is Singer just inconsistent?

7. pmail: epistemology
Student: In my eyes, a tension exists here. We can't know if
animals are self-conscious, and neither can we with absolute
certainty know whether infants are self-conscious. A doubt exists
in each case (in my opinion). If this doubt exists, then it seems that
either we cannot ethically replace infants, or else that the idea of
'doubt' itself (regarding self-consciousness) is an unsuitable principle
to use when arguing against killing animals, or, I suppose, anything.
In other words, it seems that Singer wants to have his cake and
eat it too. Doubt must apply equally to the status of all beings that
we can't experience, or else to none at all. Or else perhaps Singer
is trying something else, and I have misinterpreted him.

8. Singer 9: Insiders and Outsiders
Singer: “What are the possible solutions for
refugees in the world today? The main
options are: voluntary repatriation, local
integration in the country they first flee to,
and resettlement.” (251)
DrC: What solution would it be rational for
us to accept?

9. Wolf: Moral Saints
Wolf: “The way in which morality, unlike
other possible goals, is apt to dominate is
particularly disturbing, for it seems to
require either the lack or the denial of the
existence of an identifiable, personal
self.” (132)

10. Wolf
“We may refer to the first model as the
model of the Loving Saint: to the second, as
the model of the Rational Saint.” (129)

11. Hobbes: Leviathan
Hobbes: “So, that in the nature of man, we
find three principal causes of quarrel. First,
competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly,
glory....Hereby it is manifest that during the
time men live without a common power to
keep them all in awe, they are in that
condition which is called war; and such a
way, as is of every man, against every
man.” (141)