REPROVAL TO PETER SINGER’S PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM

 

REPROVAL TO PETER SINGER’S PHILOSOPHICAL           PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM

 

3.0 Introduction

Poverty and suffering are unavoidable and overwhelming facts of the 21^st century. Many ethical theories are proposed by many philosophers to handle it. In the second chapter, I had explained Singer’s ethical theories of the philosophy of effective altruism. Peter Singer gave a two-way explanation to poverty by mentioning relative poverty and absolute poverty.[1] Absolute poverty is the absence of the minimum income to fulfill the necessities of life. Relative poverty is the absence of the income to live to the calls of the standards of the society.  To decrease poverty, Singer proposed the principle of sacrifice. Utilitarianists like Singer always tried to decrease the suffering and tried to increase the happiness of the people. They always state that an act can be called as right if and if only it gives more net happiness than any other alternatives.[2] They emphasized to give away our happiness for the sake of many. A type of demanding and questioning of the integrity of the person always emerges in this theory. As we have seen in the last chapter, Commonsense principles have three sorts, impermissible, merely permissible and supererogatory. But the consequentialist like Singer does not have the third category in its full sense. Certain questions emerge here; Is the principle of sacrifice proposed by Singer highly demandable? What are the critiques’ views on Singer’s principles? Do we find any relation between Singer’s principles and the attitudes of Christianity? How can we differentiate Singer’s principles and Christianity’s perspectives? For Singer, this type of effective altruism is more commendable and required and actions with the best consequences are permissible and right and all other acts are impermissible and wrong.[3] Here in this chapter, I would like to explain Singer’s principle of the sacrifice of his philosophy of effective altruism, certain objections to his philosophical concepts, a certain proposal put forward by Philosophers like Samuel Scheffler, Liam Murphy, Bob Corbet, Garrett Cullity and catholic response to Singer’s principles.

 

3.1 A proposal of the principle of sacrifice by Peter Singer

In his most popular work Famine, affluence and morality, he explained the moral obligations towards the poor and what is the level of the sacrifice that morality requires from the people? If we take into consideration his principles, we all lead an immoral life.  In his Life that you can save, he proposed his principles as follows.

First premise: Suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.[4]

Second premise: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to, morally to do it.[5]

Third premise: By donating to the aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.[6]

Conclusion. Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.[7]

Here I evaluate his second premise; “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to, morally to do it”.[8] His second premise is known as his principle of sacrifice. According to this principle, the failure to donate is morally wrong. It becomes obligatory than supererogatory. We pushed to face many insignificant losses to prevent something bad from happening. As we see in his principle, we are obliged to continue the giving until our loss becomes significant to the benefit they receive. The sacrifice of our own is included in his principle. His principle becomes very compelling and demanding. Tony Ord says the principle of the sacrifice of Singer is weaker in two perspectives. “Firstly, it does not require us to provide positively good things for others, merely to prevent bad things from happening. Providing good things for people might still be supererogatory. Secondly, it only applied when the bad thing that can be prevented is much worse than the sacrifice needed to avoid it. It does not require you to sacrifice a lot to give someone else slightly more than that”.[9] Tony Ord Continues to say, Singer´s principle does not separate acts and omission. Its mere aim is to avoid harm.[10] To avoid harm to others one must sacrifice a lot. According to Singer´s premises, moral oughtness is a must.

 

3.2 Absence of the distinction between obligatory ad supererogatory

Altruism always emphasizes supererogatory acts. These are not compulsory acts but we can do even though they are not morally obligatory. Failure of doing such acts does not mean the failure of moral rightness. Singer’s principles of effective altruism failed to make a distinction between obligatory and supererogatory actions. Supererogatory acts are something beyond the call of duty. There is no questioning over whether it is done or not. If one acts in such a way, one will be praised a lot. If one fails to donate a kidney, it is not a moral wrongness. If it is done receiver will be grateful. But according to the second premise of Peter Singer, it is a must and if it is not done, your life will be immoral.[11] What Singer emphasizes is only obligations, not supererogation. To deny the existence of supererogatory action is to deny reality. In practical life, supererogation is necessary. Many supererogatory actions are appreciated by many; therefore, we can find the presence of utility too, therefore he should have accepted it.

According to the impartial maximization of good theories of Singer look for all possible maximum outcome and his theory questioned the possibility of supererogation too.[12] Singer’s theory does not recognize the presence of supererogatory acts. Singer only accepts acts that maximize good. If not they morally wrong. Singer and his followers only consider the acts with the best possible outcomes. Without donating to Oxfam, if I help a poor neighbor child who is in great need, they did not look for the best outcome. According to Singer’s principle, it is morally wrong. They did not look for the best outcome. Rachel’s anti-utilitarian arguments are applicable here. Firstly, Singer’s principle is ‘incompatible with the idea of justice’.[13] One’s individuals interests or personal interests must be sacrificed for the many who are in need. Secondly, it is against the common-sense notion of justice. Singer’s principle ‘violates individual rights.[14] Because of Singer’s principle’s aggregate character, no space for the person’s ends.  Thirdly, Singer’s principle ‘eliminates backward-looking consideration’.[15] Considerations of the past influence our moral obligations. If I received favor in the past, I must do a favor now. These three views too support the inadequacy of Singer’s principle. Singer’s impartial maximization does not give any room for supererogation and an unreasonable demand is demanded by Singer. Even though he spoke of the morally required[16] and decisive reasons[17] to do certain things, he emphasized the point that what morally suggests we should do may not be the one which has the most reason to do, Therefore I think according to the second premise of his principle we may have the most reasons not to do what is morally required. For him, to help the near one is morally required but there are many more reasons to help the universe.[18] A universal attitude is better for him than the nearness attitude.

 

3.3 Certain objections  to Singer’s principles

There are mainly certain objections to the principle of sacrifice proposed by Peter Singer in his philosophy of Effective Altruism; demandingness objection, integrity objections. The demandingness objection and integrity objections seem related and premeditated by the thought that persons must be perceived, and preserved as, distinct from one another.

 

3.3.1 Demandingness objection

Demandingness objection is based on the fact that persons must be seen, and treated as, separate from one another.[19]  In the point of view of the demandingness objection, the claim imposes on our obligations that are too burdensome.[20] It is impossible to follow the requirements such as maximization of good that are proposed by the act-consequentialism. Demandingness objection was settled as a response to the prerequisite of impartiality of beneficence and prerequisite of intensification of the overall good.[21] The target of the demandingness objection was an act utilitarian's requirement about beneficence towards others especially those outside one’s circle of family and friends.[22] Outside the circle of one’s family and friends can be called strangers. As we all know utilitarians like Singer emphasized impartiality for the promotion of welfare and utility. This impartiality requires ‘that any benefit or harm to anyone person be counted the same as the same size benefit or harm to anyone else is counted’. [23] They insisted on degrees of sacrifices for benefitting the strangers. They forced the world to ‘have sacrificed to help others until the losses to oneself are equal to the benefits to others of helping them’. [24] To promote the good, life of hardship, austerity, and self-denial are proposed. They demanded more sacrifices. The question is always whether too much self-sacrifice is demanded by moral duty or it is opposed to praised as above and beyond the call of duty.

The strength of this objection is intense in the effective altruism proposed by Peter Singer to eradicate suffering and poverty in the world. Demandingness objection developed based on the belief that ‘moral theory with counterintuitive inferences cannot be probable’.[25] Moral theories should be consistent with our ultimate moral principles.[26] Consequentialist like Singer always underlines the fact that “moral theories hold that moral evaluations and justifications must ultimately be grounded in the value of the consequences of the actions, rules, policies, strategies, character traits, etc. that are being evaluated”.[27] They ask only one question whether it promotes good. This view is similar to ‘the point of view of the universe’ of Sidgwick[28] to Hare’s archangel - the ideal moral agent as a so-called ‘archangel’[29]and Firth’s conception of ‘the ideal impartial observer’.[30] Whatever one thinks about the demandingness of Singer’s two proposed principles, one should, therefore, endorse the Very Weak Principle of Sacrifice and agree that we still have significant obligations to use our income to effectively improve the lives of others.

Singer also has spoken a lot of the impartial perspective by telling, every human being has equal weight.[31] We have to take everyone as a whole and to see everything from the point of the universe. Seeing everyone with equal weight to maximize good brings has certain inferences against our moral convictions. Singer’s principle of sacrifice is an act-consequentialist theory. To understand this better, we have to comprehend the distinction between agent-neutral and agent-relative theories. Agent-neutral theories always provide substantial moral goals. It speaks of the ultimate moral aims from the point of view of the universe.[32] In this sense, the act-consequentialist views of Singer are part and parcel of agent-neutral theory and give only the least importance to agent-centered options. Agent-relative theories always argue for the betterment of oneself and dear and near ones.[33] Impartiality proposed by Singer to maximize good see all people the same and it has an unacceptable implication too.

For Act-consequentialist like Singer, failure of saving ten is worse than the failure of saving one. Singer’s views and concepts reject the existence of agent-centered options. Singer himself has presented in his Life that you can save like this; “no principle of obligation is going to be widely accepted unless it recognizes that parents will and should love their children more than the children of strangers, and, for that reason, will meet the basic needs of their children before they meet the needs of strangers.”[34] Even though he says it, he does not prefer the luxuries of the children to the basic needs of the people. As Brian Barry has written, the effect of consequentialist impartiality “is, in effect, to extend to the whole of conduct the requirements of impartiality that on the common-sense view are restricted to judges and bureaucrats acting in their official capacities.”[35] Mill also spoke of the necessity of promoting the general interests of society as follows;

The great majority of good actions are intended, not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights – that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations – of anyone else. The multiplication of happiness is, according to the utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue: the occasions on which any person (except one in a thousand) has it in his power to do this on an extended scale, in other words, to be a public benefactor, are but exceptional; and on these occasions alone is he called on to consider public utility; in every other case, private utility, the interest or happiness of some few persons, is all he has to attend to.[36]

Singer defended his critics with three views. First, a consequentialist might argue that any genuinely impartial moral theory will make extreme demands of agents.[37] Second, they might argue that the view that consequentialism is excessively demanding depends on a false theory of practical reasoning, which accords too much significance to morality.[38] Third, they might argue that in fact, the demands of consequentialism are not as extreme as have been supposed.[39] Whether a moral theory or duty is too demanding depends on two things: the costs to the agent of the actions required by that duty and the size of the moral stakes at issue.[40] If the moral stakes are high, morality can be very demanding, without being too demanding. This is represented within commonsense morality. According to common-sense morality, we have to understand the ratio of how much one can benefit others to how much one can benefit oneself.[41] But what Singer proposes as follows; ‘Pain is bad and similar amounts of pain are equally bad, no matter whose pain it might be. The seriousness of taking a life depends, not on the race, sex or species of being killed, but on its individual characteristics, such as its own desires about continuing to live the kind of life it is capable of leading. We should consider ourselves responsible both for what we do and for what we refrain from doing’.[42] All the proposals of Singer give too much burden on the individual and integrity of one’s own existence also is questioned.

 

 

 

3.3.2 Integrity objection

There is another objection named integrity objection. The definition given by Bernard Williams is as follows; “no moral theory can reasonably require an agent to give up her sense of self in order to pursue the overall general welfare”.[43] According to the integrity objection, the mandatoriness claim threatens the integrity of the person.[44] In Singer’s principle, my existence is for world welfare. Personal integrities are not given priorities. For Singer, everything is to be done impartially. For Williams, Integrity contains commitment.[45] In Singer’s principles, we abandon our commitments. When we abandon our commitments, we actually pickpocket a person of integrity.  For Williams, what they try is to do better by abandoning their commitments that by staying committed to them.[46] He did not insist on too much commitment whatever be the consequences.

Williams considers ‘utilitarianism as in commitment to a doctrine of negative responsibility. The concept of negative responsibility is that ‘an agent is responsible not only for the consequences of one’s actions but also for the consequences of the others who do not act’.[47] From this negative responsibility, it moves on to integrity objection. For Williams, we are separated from our actions according to utilitarian principles.[48]  What they try to see the human as merely as an agent in the satisfaction systems.[49]

To do justice to integrity also means to do justice to happiness. Failure to do justice to integrity leads to the failure of doing justice to happiness too. According to Williams, our integrity is always related to our sincerity to our commitments. Our commitments always stretch attention to our lives and they contain schemes with which we identify.[50] Therefore, abandoning them leads to damage to integrity and results in the damage of happiness. Thereby, failure of doing justice to happiness effects.

In the impersonal point of view of Singer and utilitarians, all are equally responsible for the suffering of the world. As William says utilitarianists do not treat Paul and Peter as separate persons. According to Williams, Utilitarians neglect the fact that Peter has plans, values, and beliefs and Paul also has plans and dreams of life. Irrespective of all these they merely try to reduce suffering and increase happiness.[51] Singer’s theories always reject the fact who one is. Everything is seen as mere in overall calculus. The personal integrity of human beings is not respected by Singer. One’s commitments and personals goals are not treated well in Singer’s view. “People do not typically view the world from the impersonal perspective, nor do their actions typically flow from the kinds of concerns a being who actually did inhabit the impersonal standpoint might have”. [52] The integrity objection is thus tightly related to the topic of demandingness as I presented in the previous part.

When Singer had given priority to the impartiality, the personal prerogative got abandoned.  Singer’s views to do everything impartially is highly demandable and rejects ‘the weight of one’s own project and the weight of one’s loyalties’.[53] Scheffler explains, the weight of one’s own project as  “if we are to treat persons as separate from one another we have to recognize that each agent’s projects are particularly weighty for him – have a weight for him that they do not have for other agents’ and vice-versa, and we must allow him to pursue those projects, even if he would in so doing deprive others of something of greater importance to them than his own projects are to him”.[54] He relates the weight of one’s loyalties with demandingness too. He says the weight of one’s loyalties means “the demandingness objection seems even stronger when taking into account, not simply the demandingness for the agent of foregoing his own projects, but the demandingness of forgoing opportunities to foster special relationships to his relatives and friends – to give special weight, out of proportion in the overall calculus, to our loyalties”.[55] As critique to the impartiality and impersonal acts of Singer, Scheffler says;

it is a crucially important fact about the nature of agency that people do not typically view the world from the impersonal perspective, nor do their actions typically flow from the kinds of concerns a being who actually did inhabit the impersonal standpoint might have. And further: a moral theory does justice to this fact only if it grants people a personal prerogative to attach more weight, and give more importance, to their own projects and attachments, than impersonal optimality by itself would allow.[56]

When we speak about integrity, I would like to mention ubuntu too. Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning 'humanity to others'. It also means 'I am what I am because of who we all are'.[57] According to Michael Onyebuchi Eze, the core of ubuntu can best be summarized as follows;

A person is a person through other people' strikes an affirmation of one’s humanity through recognition of an ‘other’ in his or her uniqueness and difference. It is a demand for a creative intersubjective formation in which the ‘other’ becomes a mirror (but only a mirror) for my subjectivity. This idealism suggests to us that humanity is not embedded in my person solely as an individual; my humanity is co-substantively bestowed upon the other and me. Humanity is a quality we owe to each other. We create each other and need to sustain this otherness creation. And if we belong to each other, we participate in our creations: we are because you are, and since you are, definitely I am. The ‘I am’ is not a rigid subject, but a dynamic self-constitution dependent on this otherness creation of relation and distance.[58]

A person with Ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, based from a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished when others are tortured or oppressed.[59] Ubuntu speaks particularly about the fact that you can't exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about our interconnectedness. You can't be human all by yourself, and when you have this quality – Ubuntu – you are known for your generosity.[60] We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals, separated from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do affects the whole World. When you do well, it spreads out; it is for the whole of humanity.[61] Even this ancient principle respected the integrity of the person but Singer blinded himself towards the integrity of a person.

Singer’s theory underlines, sacrifice my happiness for the happiness of others. Even though it appears good, it violates the integrity of a person. Singer’s impartiality ignored the moral significance of personal projects and relations. Act-consequentialist views of Singer demoralize the integrity of the human’s life and estrange one from his personal ventures and obligations.  When the integrity of humans is questioned, they can’t lead a meaningful life.

 

3.3.3. The criticism of impracticability

Singer’s principles of effective altruism are a mere article of imagination. As J. L. Mackie named utilitarianism as mere fantasy[62], I would like to call Singer’s principles as the ethics of fantasy because of its impracticability. General or universal happiness is the aim of Singer’s principles. For that, the moral actions that are done should be fair and unselfish. Mackie says; “we can explain much common sense or intuitive rules as being in general justified by their tendency to promote the general happiness, but when two common-sense rules come into conflict, we need to appeal directly to the utility to decide what to do”.[63]  In Singer’s principles, this conflict is vivid whether to be fair or unselfish or whether to consider my family members or the needs of the world. He also had emphasized the general interest of the society including all sentient beings, even over-emphasis to animals too. Singer’s concern was for the interest of all sentient beings of the present and the future. Singer expects humanity to act more to reduce suffering. When too much burden is placed on humanity, his own existence and worth living will be in danger. Mackie underlined the claim that utilitarianism is frustrated by the fact that a large element of selfishness or self-love is a quiet ineradicable part of human nature.[64] Humans cannot have a life without self-love. Therefore, a pure altruistic behavior without self-love is impossible. Normally we may love near ones or our dear ones as ourselves, but Singer gives more priority to reduce the suffering of the world even by reducing our duty towards the near and dear ones. Mackie also has said, one of the major parts of our passions and affections are self-love and the actions which express and realize them cannot be expected tom general to tend towards the general happiness. Selfless effective altruism as Singer proposed is always impracticable. What we need is self-referential altruism as  Mackie presented; a concern for others but for others who have some special connection with ourselves; children, parents, friends, workmates, neighbors, etc.[65] The idea of self-referential altruism is that self-love and the felt connection between self and others foster genuine other-concern that may result in altruistic acts for others' sake. The theory of self-referential altruism occupies a middle-ground between commonly understood egoism altruism, which means that it both recognizes the partial truth of egoism and altruism respectively and rejects their errors and misconceptions.[66] Without giving a special concern for our dear ones, effective altruism is not at all possible. Effective altruism is to be presented as extended self-love than selfless love towards the other. If not, it is highly impracticable.

 

3.4 Peter Singer’s principles and Indian philosophical thoughts  

Vedic principles have emphasized the necessity of selfless service with willpower to end up the suffering of the world. “To achieve the end in view, (Ichchantah bradram) desiring universal prosperity, (tasmaat) Out of that, (Jaatam) is born raashtram the nation, balam the strength (ojah cha) and splendor, (tat) so (devah) let the learned and noble men (upa sum namantu) have the best regard (asmai) for this principle”.[67]

Vedic philosophy spoke of the necessity of rights and duties too. One of the important purposes of human existence, Vedic philosophy calls it's as Dharma.  In Mahabharatha, Bhishma gives a response to Yudishitir on Dharma. “It is most difficult to define Dharma, Dharma has been explained to be that which helps the uplifting of living beings. Therefore, that which ensures the welfare of living beings is surely Dharma”.[68]

Others explain dharma as that which is indicated by the Vedas as conducive to the highest good.  There are four aspects of human life, dharma (duty); artha (profit); kama (pleasure); and  moksha (liberation).  Dharma controls the pursuit of both kama and artha. For those in whom dharma predominates are of sattvik (virtuous) nature while the wealth seekers are rajasik  (passionate)  and those of pleasure is tamasik  (ignorant).[69] Dharma, therefore, comprises of every type of righteous conduct covering every aspect of life that is essential to the welfare of an individual and the society. Those who observe the laws of dharma automatically attain moksha  (eternal bliss). Therefore dharma, artha, kama, and moksha shape the ends of life.

Vedic philosophy called dharma as the righteous conduct to hold for the wellness of the society. Even though Vedic Philosophy considered dharma as universal, it had spoken of the sva-dharma. Acting against one’s dharma is adharma. Correct action according to dharma is a service to humanity and God. Bhagavad Gita also says “Those who eat without sharing, eat veritable poison”.[70] According to the writings Jindal, Seva is the best Indian word for altruistic activities.[71] It is related to dharma. Do our duty to others without selfishness. Sarvodhaya concept of Vinobha Bhave, Mahatma Gandhi, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Buddha stressed the selfless services. Sarvodaya was a service in the spirit of love.

The necessity of sva-dharma is always underlined in Indian philosophy. Without fulfilling sva-dharma, one cannot fulfill the para-dharma.[72] It is the same as the commitment to oneself as I had presented in the theme of Williams. Singer demanded more of the para-dharma than the sva-dharma[73]. According to Indian philosophical concepts, whatever we do without fulfilling our sva-dharma, they are known as adharma.

There is a phrase Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam appears in Maha Upanishad. It is the same as seeing the world from the perspective of the universe.  This phrase is in Chapter 6 of the text. This verse of Maha Upanishad is engraved in the entrance hall of the parliament of India. ayam bandhurayam neti ganana laghuchetasam udaracharitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam -Only small men discriminate saying: One is a relative; the other is a stranger. For those who live magnanimously, the entire world constitutes but a family. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam[74] is a philosophy that inculcates an understanding that the whole world is one family. It is a philosophy that tries to foster an understanding that the whole of humanity is one family. It is a social philosophy emanating from a spiritual understanding that the whole of humanity is made of one life energy. It is a Sanskrit phrase meaning that the whole earth is one family.

The first word is made up of three Sanskrit words - Vasudha, Eva and Kutumbakam. Vasudha means the earth, Eva means emphasizing and Kutumbakam means a family. It means that the whole earth is just one family. The whole philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is an integral part of Hindu Philosophy. It is a cosmic organization. And it is an organization by the people, of the people, and for the people. It is absolutely organic and existential. It is basically built on the very need of existence.[75] I strongly believe that the very need of existence has to be the need of every individual. We are all here to fulfill that individual need and in turn, fulfill the very need of existence. The whole purpose of the Government is the welfare of society and peace in the society. The whole objective of a Government is to work towards the philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.[76] All our needs are basically three-fold: Business, Social, and Spiritual. We all want to basically fulfill our survival, social and spiritual needs.

We all act and interact with one another in some way and try to make this world a better and beautiful place to live. We are all a World Wide Web of so many relationships. The universe is a participating Universe.[77] That is, the Universe has a meaning only when we are interacting with the Universe. The Universe is neither discrete nor continuous. It is now called a participative Universe. It is an inter-dependent, inter-twined, inter-woven, inter-related, and inter-connected Universe. We cannot live as separate islands. This is the discovery of the outer world and outer science.[78] The Vedic and Upanishadic sages, the Buddhas, the mystics have discovered this truth long back in the ancient past in their inner world. This was the result of their inner search and an inner revelation. The whole existence of a human is a Parasparam Abhyantaha.[79] This is in Sanskrit and when translated means that inter-dependent and interconnected we all live in some way or the other and we can never live anymore as separate islands. This is the dream of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. You and Me together mean We. ‘We’ means the whole world. ‘We’ means Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. Indian philosophy insisted us to do dharma by seeing the world as my own family and one. Singer emphasized my duty towards other my satisfaction.[80] Nothing more. My dharma or commitments are not very well emphasized and responsibility towards the others is deadly demanded in Singer’s principles too. Now I move on to certain criticism of certain philosophers to Singer’s ideologies and their certain proposals.

 

 

 

3.5 Philosophers’ objections to high demandingness of Singer’s principles

Here I present the views of Bob Corbet, Thomas Negal, Liam Murphy, Garrett Cullity Samuel Scheffler and John Praesto who tried to evaluate the principles of Singer and made certain suggestions to improve the principles of Singer.

 

3.5.1 Ought not a mere must but can too

As I had explained in chapter two, Singer’s ought is a must concept and does not include can. Bob Corbet had criticized Peter Singer’s principles. Bob Corbet had given a reply to Singer by using the concept of Kant’s ought which implies can.  He understood the moral obligation to strangers with justice. But he senses it as an offense of the right to freedom.[81] It is related to negative rights, the right to have not interfered. All human beings have an innate right to freedom and we have control over our property. Any violation of the negative rights is a violation of justice.[82] There is another argument founded on the obligation of beneficence. Singer presented the obligation as follows; “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to, morally to do it”.[83] His argument also tones a responsibility to provide for the needs of every child in the world, before providing for their own children's luxuries. His argument has the following taste according to Corbet, “if we can do some good for another in need without doing any comparable harm to ourselves, then we ought to do it”.[84] According to Corbet, it is too difficult to distinguish when the beneficence demand that I help out and when not.

 For Corbet, Singer claims “that the only objective ground of cut off is the concept of necessity for actual survival or an even stronger mandate of a concept of minimal human dignity”.[85] In this theory, we more morally compelled to lead a life at a mere subsistence level and to give away whatever we have. In this theory, more emphasis is given to the positive aspect of the responsibility to others, the responsibility of beneficence. Here emerges a problem an imbalance between my responsibility to the other and others’ moral obligation to himself/herself.[86] Without making any inconvenience to oneself, it is acceptable if not it is unfair. If his theory is accepted it is against realities of every day and it lacks attention to the needs of each being.

 What Singer proposes is a positive moral obligation than a negative moral obligation. The negative moral right does not have any absolute mentality but positive moral rights compel one to do a particular one. Others cannot be left alone.[87] Others should be helped if other is in need. Corbet also tells that ought should mean can too, it should not be chained in must. Corbet says; “I believe that asking each individual to take responsibility for all the misery in the world does great harm to the concept of personal responsibility for ourselves”.[88] He continues to argue that “the practical necessity of having a moral obligation which we can keep, requires us to be limited in obligation to those cases that we experience directly in the chances of living, and not to the entire world of suffering which we can know”.[89] Again he asserts by challenging Singer,  “that one may argue that many obligations which might be, at first glance, regarded as obligations of beneficence or of positive moral right, can be reconstrued as negative rights based on the grounds of unjust interference in the responsible acts of others trying to take care of themselves”[90]

Thomas Negal, when he explained the agent-relative and agent-neutral reason in his The Possibility of Altruism and the view from nowhere, he expressed his views in the same manner too. He portrayed the difference between the agent-relative and agent-neutral. Agent-neutral is something universal and applied to all regardless of boundaries. Agent-relative is something that is in particular situations. Agent-neutral reasons are those that apply to anyone in a situation, regardless of any special relationship to the individuals or other elements involved.[91] By contrast, an agent-relative reason would apply to a person only because of such a relation. So, for example, anyone should have a reason for general benevolence to help others in distress, but I would have a special reason to help if it is my children who are in distress. A good deal of moral theory concerns the nature of the balance between these two sorts of reasons. Negal says; “if a reason can be given a general form which does not include an essential reference to the person who has it, it is an agent‐neutral reason…. If on the other hand, the general form of a reason does include an essential reference to the person who has it then it is an agent‐relative reason”.[92] Some times our interests should be given priority than the world's well-being. Therefore, it is better this ought to include a can. Ought as a must is highly demandable in Singer. It is better to include a can in his idea. If not, it is not at all practicable.

 

3.5.2 Fair share and collective beneficence 

Singer’s views are objectionable because of its high demand. According to Liam Murphy, the problem of the theories of the beneficence of the Utilitarians like Singer is ‘due difference in the levels of sacrifice the principle requires in conditions of partial compliance versus conditions of full compliance’.[93] For Murphy, the principle of beneficence is the optimizing principle. His objections are to the fact that many of the situations most of the people won’t contribute to the well-being, therefore a minority of people who contribute are burdened greater. For him, this attitude is an unfair gesture. One should not be burdened greater only because of the others’ failure to promote well-being. Murphy says “a moral principle should not increase the demands it makes on agents merely because, overall, compliance with that principle has decreased”.[94] One’s a fair share of responsibility for promoting well-being just is the share of responsibility assigned to one in a fair allocation of individual responsibility under full compliance. He says;

Each agent is required to act optimally – to perform the action that makes the outcome best – except in situations of partial compliances with this principle. In situations of partial compliance, it is permissible to act optimally, but the sacrifice each agent is required to make is limited to the level of sacrifice that would be optimal if the situation were one full of compliance; of the actions that require no more than this level of sacrifice, agents are required to perform the actions that make the outcome best.[95]

He argues that doing good makes ‘implausible demands in a common situation of partial compliance’.[96] When others are not complying with their duty to maximize the good, an act-consequentialist duty to maximize the good requires the agent to do more so as to make up for their non-compliance. The compliance condition requires the demands on the complying person should not exceed what they should be under full compliance with the principle.[97] His view is known as the compliance condition. Murphy develops the idea that it is unfair to hold compliers responsible for doing things that others should have done, that is, unfair to increase the burdens on compilers so as to make up for others’ non-compliance. According to him, it is not necessary for one to take more share of responsibility. If it is done it is unfair.[98]

The theory of Murphy is known as the collective principle of beneficence. Its basic idea is that a person never needs a sacrifice so much that would end up less well-off than he would under full compliance from now on, but within that constraint, he must do as much good as possible.[99] According to Murphy,  all moral agents are supposed to double the whole well-being with the following limitation. “They have no duty to incur greater costs to their own well-being than they would incur if everyone tried to maximize overall well-being”.[100] He emphasizes, “moral agents do not have a requirement of beneficence to take up the slack from the non-compliance of others”.[101] As Murphy wishes, you can do great good to others by having only Little cost to oneself. Even though he himself has told his principle of beneficence supported by a tally of considerations.[102]  He couldn´t clearly explain what that tally is.

According to Singer´s theory, one leads an immoral life if one fails to abandon every personal pleasurable activity to help the poor.  I feel his theory is too much impractical. What Murphy tries is to resolve normative standards and practical implications. Singer theory proposed only to do the best independently of others. He preferred an individual attempt instead of a cooperative venture.[103] Murphy tried a cooperative attempt founded on the notion of fairness.[104] He called the principle of beneficence as an agent-neutral principle.[105]  We all have a moral aim as common and on the basis of this common aim we act in cooperative ventures. He says; “in the world of A, B, C, If A and B do not comply with their share of moral obligations, simple act-consequentialism wound require C to fulfill their share”.[106] For Him it is unfair. What Murphy tried is to propose is his own principle of beneficence founded on fairness and common project. When he spoke of the maximization of good, he said that it should not worsen the conditions of one who gives. He demanded full compliance with the principle. In order to reach the maximization of wellbeing, people should not sacrifice more than what they are supposed to under full compliance. He says, it is good to have more sacrifices but it is not actually ethically required.[107] His theory permits the supererogatory acts. One can do more than what is required to do. It should be appreciated but there is more wrongness in not doing such acts.[108] Murphy proposes a third person rider to make a choice and he says; “sacrifice is not morally required at all if a person´s well-being is already lower than her expected well-being under full compliance”.[109] All have an equal responsibility and each one has to do his obligation.

Normally Singer’s view demands more responsibility, a type of negative responsibility of Williams as I had mentioned earlier. More responsibility concepts give two different aspects of the burden of responsibility. One is crushing the moral pressure aspect.[110]  It is related to the high standard justification for our daily acts in terms of negative answerability. To defend one’s act one has to defend the choice. Everything a person does is under scrutiny. Our freedom to act gets limited always. We are in potency to reduce but we don’t act at a level.[111]

Another one is the ownership of the misery aspect.[112] Creating an atmosphere of feeling responsible for the suffering of the other is always a moral burden. It may create guilty.no one likes to be blamed. It is regret not on what had occurred but on our contribution to what had occurred.  It is the same as the agent regret concept of Bernard Williams.[113] It is taking responsibility for all the actions.  It may be a stroke of brute bad luck. But actually, it is not. We are not responsible for what we ourselves think as responsible.

Fair Share Views hold that to compute “what each affluent individual is morally required to contribute to the collective action of helping the poor, we should divide the overall burden among all those on whom it falls”.[114] Cullity argues that this intuitively appealing solution fails. The fact that so many affluent people have defected from the collective enterprise of beneficence does not relieve those of us who remain from the duty to form a new collective enterprise with similar goals and to divide the remaining work fairly amongst ourselves. The relative scarcity of altruists just raises our Fair Share back to the Extreme Demand,[115] Cullity concludes.

Philip Pettit also supports the only necessity of fair share.  All human beings are supposed to do a fair share. If I am one among many to help, I have only a limited obligation. If one dies or suffers because of the failure of others’ fair share, the liability of the suffering falls on the one who failed to do the fair share. According to his view, my responsibility is only to give a fair share.[116] These principles have plausible implications, in the beneficence, it sees a cooperative Project.  Murphy views that an idea of fairness tells that agents in a cooperative Project should be treated as agents in the more specific sense by which it is alright for cooperators not to take up the slack of non-cooperators.[117] Even though his theory is worth, Murphy´s concept of fairness can be questionable. He says; “it could be objected that ..victims of non-compliance are to be worse off than the compliers who require to take up the slack and we would normally think it fairer to let some cost fall on the better-off of two people”.[118] He himself says; “…assimilated a concern with the fairness of the way a principle of beneficence imposes responsibility on agents to a general concern about the fairness of the distribution of well-being”.[119] Even though he proposed kinds of fairness, he explained only one.[120]  Even though it has certain these defects  I find it more appealing than more demanding concepts. Shared responsibility is better than Singer’s responsibility.

 

3.5.3 The importance of the moderate demanding concept

As I had explained in the last chapter, Singer always emphasizes the principle that all people have moral duty to help ease suffering and even save the lives overseas even at all costs by sacrificing all that one has. Garrett Cullity argued about the failure of Murphy’s principle intuitively.  Garrett Cullity made an argued position to Singer in his The Moral Demands of Affluence. Cullity dealt the position “you are acting wrongly if you are not making a serious effort to find an effective way to help poor, or contributing to some other comparably important cause”.[121] And “when it morally acceptable to stop?”[122]Garrett  Cullity sets a limit on how much can be asked of helped agents.

 According to Cullity, all human beings have the moral reason for beneficence to help the needy whenever they are in need. If the help only needs a little cost to yourself, you morally have to do it.[123] Cullity dealt with the necessity of the point of the amount which it would be wrong not to give to help them.[124] According to him, this will help the people to give emphasis to individual responsibility as opposed to collective responsibility. It gives the personal moral obligation of the people to the world. His arguments sound like Singer, “After all if I were confronted directly by the great need of someone whom I could help at negligible cost to myself, it would certainly be wrong not to help. So, unless being confronted directly makes a difference, and why should it, the same should be said about giving money to aid agencies”.[125] He also had spoken of beneficence as the two-way relationship between donor and recipient.

 He presented certain principles which can obstruct our moral duty to the needy. His view comes from his thought that “if someone is obviously required to help me obtain or keep a certain thing, or way of life for example, then it cannot be wrong for me to obtain or keep it”.[126] He proposed certain claims. Firstly, the lifesaving concepts and analogies of Singer lead to the extreme demandable conclusion.[127] Secondly, the beneficent person helps the needy only because of his reasoning that the one who is there needs help.[128] For him, there is an error in this consideration. They do not give room for other countervailing perspectives. Thirdly his giving to the needy is in relation to his engagements with the defensible life-enhancing good.[129]  Before we donate, it is better to look into the seen (immediate effects) and unseen (future effects or use of the amount) effects of our giving.  He proposed a moderate demanding view;

A moderately demanding view does not yield an extremely demanding moral outlook…it is revisory, though, in demanding direction. There are monetary sacrifices that each of us could make without depriving our lives of worthwhile achievement, enjoyment, close personal relationships, community involvement, understanding, integrity, or autonomy to any significant degree, certainly not enough to make our lives substantially worse.[130]

For him, extreme demand can be rejected on the basis of an impartial point of view and "from the point of view of beneficence itself".[131] His argument begins with the familiar premise that many of the intrinsically life-enhancing goods are goods of partiality, such as friendship, personal projects, and community involvement. The Extreme Demand, however, would require me to lead an "altruistically-focused life" in which I "constrict my pursuit of the goods of partiality as much as I bearably and usefully can, for the purpose of contributing to helping others".[132] Cullity asserts, “someone's interest in something cannot give one reason to help her obtain it if it would be morally wrong for her to obtain it”.[133] If we do not lead an altruistically focused life, it is wrong. To do something, if one does not have a sufficient reason it is wrong to do it. Even if there are extreme demands, we need not do it without having sufficient reasons. He himself called his approach as an internal approach.[134] Cullity argues, ‘to maintain a personal policy that permits me to pursue goods of partiality’.[135] This consideration ‘countervails against the pro tanto reason to aid, without "appealing to what I have done for others to justify an unwillingness to contribute toward helping the next person"’.[136] He had relied on the following idea, “When your interest in having or doing a certain thing is an interest in having or doing what it would be wrong for you to have or do, that interest cannot be a good reason for morally requiring me to help you get or do it”.[137] I think his views underline the fact that specified interest could be a good pro tanto reason for morally requiring me to help you.

According to Jeffrey Brand-Ballard, “Cullity's position, however, requires the truth of at least one of the two following propositions. The first is that the Extreme Demand implies that goods of partiality provide no pro tanto moral reason to help. But the Demand does not imply this. It merely implies that the pro tanto reason provided by partial goods may not generate an all-things-considered reason to help, given sufficiently weighty countervailing reasons”. [138] For him, in extreme demands, more altruistic victims enjoy priority over less altruistic ones. Jeffrey Brand-Ballard evaluated this view as follows; “If there are no more altruists available to rescue, then beneficence still requires me to rescue endangered non-altruists. The "wrongness" of the less altruistic victim's lifestyle does not neutralize his claim on me; it merely gives him lower priority than any more altruistic victim. The Demand entails that the victim has, in absolute terms, a weaker claim on us than we believed, pre-theoretically, but his relative claim on us remains as strong as ever”.[139]

 For Cullity, If the following things are, justifiably we can close our eyes to give; “it would deprive me of a non-altruistically-focused life; it would worsen my life by a requirement-grounding amount; it would deprive me of a good that is better than the alternatives by a requirement-grounding amount; it would deprive me of a commitment good”.[140] If the action is with little cost to yourself, it’s ok for the one to do it. Cullity’s countervailing reason is that people are obviously required to help me obtain or keep certain things and if they are so required, it cannot be wrong for me to obtain and to hold on to these things.[141] I feel a non-altruistically focused life as a sound one. He called the principles of altruism as an extreme demand.

Cullity says “ since the extreme demand requires us to lead altruistically focused lives, and since it is wrong to help someone get something that it is wrong to have, the Extreme Demand implies that it is wrong to help people in the fulfillment of a non-altruistically-focused life, and that is absurd, so the Extreme Demand should be rejected”.[142] For him, Extreme demands do not consider our own personal interests. A limit should be given to the giving that we make. If not, extreme demands will offend the integrity of a person. Therefore, Singer’s principle is a great danger to the integrity of a person.

 

3.5.4 Attempting a reconciliation of act-consequentialist theory and common-sense morality

Since Singer’s concepts of impartiality and universal point of view are questioned on the basis of demandingness, here I mention a hybrid theory proposed by Samuel Scheffler.  Samuel Scheffler’s hybrid view had tried to reconcile act consequentialist theory and common-sense morality by giving room for personal projects and commitments too. He argued for the Hybrid view by proposing agent-centered prerogative.  He says “ the prerogative permits the agent to choose to perform the action that will be sub-optimal from an impartial perspective, that is, that will bring about less than the best state of affairs”.[143]  Scheffler suggests that “one plausible way for an agent-centered prerogative to operate is to allow agents to assign a greater moral weight to their own projects, relationships, etc. than they are assigned from the impersonal point of view”.[144] That means not always obligatory to do the greatest overall good. He also had spoken of how much weight we should give to the interest of ourselves than of others. He proposed certain criteria to give moral permission to certain acts. For Scheffler,

someone is morally permitted to perform one’s preferred act p if and only if there is no alternative act A such that A would produce a better overall outcome than P, as judged from an impartial standpoint, and the total net loss to others from doing p rather than A was more than M times as great as the net loss to one of doing   A rather than P, where M is morally allowed ratio that each agent can give to her own interests rather than to the interests of others.[145]

Samuel Scheffler also had spoken the necessity of the liberation of a personal point of view from the impersonal point of view.

Each person has a point of view, a perspective from which projects are undertaken, plans are developed, events are observed, and life is lived. Each point of view constitutes, among other things, a locus relative to which harms and benefits can be assessed, and are typically assessed by the person who has the point of view. This assessment is both different from and compatible with the assessment of overall states of affairs from an impersonal standpoint.[146]

 Giving values to my life and my dears’ lives exist as a factor for the meaning of life. It is a feature of human nature. We should not reject it but Singer’s concepts questioned the meaning of life by giving the least values to the near and dear ones. Scheffler emphasized the necessity of the independence of the personal point of view as follows;

(...)if the independence of the personal point of view is an important fact for morality, that is not just because of its role in determining the nature of human fulfillment, but also, simply, because of what it tells us about the character of personal agency and motivation: people do not typically view the world from the impersonal perspective, nor do their actions typically flow from the kinds of concerns a being who actually did inhabit the impersonal standpoint might have.[147]

If a moral theory is not consistent with a personal point of view that theory is not worth it. From his view, we can say that the independence of the personal point of view indicates that humans are incapable of always acting so as to produce an optimal outcome as judged from the impersonal point of view. From this point, we infer that humans cannot always be stirred by the alarms of those who inhabit the impersonal standpoint because the actions of humans are not typically moved by those kinds of concerns. If humans cannot always be motivated by the concerns of those who inhabit the impersonal standpoint, then humans cannot be morally required to always act in such a way that promotes those concerns.[148] So, a moral theory should make room for the independence of a personal point of view. Singer’s theories had not given any priority to the personal point of view.  Even though it gives chance to agent’s preferences, it avoids unreasonable demands of consequentialists like Singer.

 

3.5.5 Assimilation of fair share and a limit of demands

From the above principles, we can take into account certain good points of the theory and we can make assimilation of fair share and a limit of demands. John Praesto had made assimilation of these two by taking only positive aspects of it. According to John Praesto, the principle of Cullity ‘is not practically translatable; because of the impossibility of interpersonal subjective comparisons, it is not possible to fully follow this principle in real life. You can't measure if something is requirement-grounding’.[149] He says; “If Cullity's principle is to determine how much people are allowed to spend on themselves, we need some concrete and/or measurable way to determine what is requirement-grounding”.[150] He could not explain what the requirement grounding is. Murphy proposed that helpers share the burden of the good to be done, no matter how much it is.[151]  Cullity says;  that it is okay to stop helping when "there are no longer any lives to be saved", which could make up a limit that when reached people no longer need help, we'll call it a "down-up limit".[152]  But for John Praesto, A principle of beneficence needs a limit defined in terms of well-being. He proposed a view with the merging of the goodness of Murphy and Cullity. This principle consists of the idea of the fair share as we have seen in Murphy, a calculation of what one´s fair share is a limit of demands (up-down limit as in Cullitty), a

definition on when help no longer is needed (down-up limit).[153] The merging of the up-down limit and down-up limit can be called as the limit.[154] “So the limit should consist of circumstances where individuals have access to what gives well-being in life: fundamental well-being generators, like autonomy and close relationships”.[155] This principle goes as follows; ‘you should help, either as much as you would have done in a world where everybody above the limit helped proportionally distributed after wealth until the whole population of the world was above the limit, or until you if you helped any more, would end up below the limit’.[156] The limit should be and is at the same time implying that the type of help to be given is to create, circumstances where people have reasonable influence over their own well-being, where they have access to fundamental well-being generators (like autonomy and friendship) and fulfillment of basic needs.[157]

According to this theory, everyone should be above the limit, for the sake of well-being. Giving here focus to promote those who are under the limit to above the limit. In our great temporary need, we can´t be excused for not participating in the action. If I can leave my KFC and eat later. I should do help. It is a great temporary need to help now. No one is excepted from the fair share. Same as we have seen in Cullity and Murphy, it also had appreciated the impartiality. As I have mentioned earlier, Cullity gave protection to the complying agents from the suffering of the impairments of impartiality. If an action leads one to under the limit, itis not necessary for the one to be impartial.  If it is done it violates the fulfillment of the basic needs of the well-being generator. The new principle won´t give much force on the agent. Here there is no unreasonable burden, burdens are distributed in a fair manner and not in an equal manner.[158] This principle avoids the drawbacks of Singer´s principle giving too much burden on the agent. Therefore, merging of Murphy and Cullity will be a better option against extreme demandingness of Singer.

 

3.6 Traditional ethical principles and Singer’s ethics

Traditional ethical principles accepted and respected human dignity, the sanctity of life, the principle of autonomy[159], beneficence[160], non-maleficence[161], and justice[162] because of the human centredness of ethics. What Peter Singer had tried by making a Copernican revolution in ethics is questioning the centrality of humans. Aristotle had developed the awareness of Scala Naturae (Natural Ladder) to establish all things in the natural world, living and non-living. Aristotle's Scala Naturae presented a range from "lower" systems of matter to "higher" systems of matter. Aristotle placed humans above all because of their capacity for rationality. Humans and animals can both move, but plants and minerals cannot.[163] Peter Singer questioned the only humans hold rationality concept which makes humans different from other beings when he made discussions on the person.

According to our traditional understandings, the Person is a self-conscious and rational being. A person is an individual substance with a rational nature. Aristotle also has used the person instead of human beings. Christians considered all of the human beings as a person irrespective of persons’ caste, class, continent, etc. For Singer, “a being is a person, not because one has some intrinsic values but because of some qualities such as self-awareness, the capacity to experience something that our capacity to feel pain or to have any kind of feelings”.[164]  For Singer, to be a person one has to fulfill certain cognitive sophistication.[165] These persons are self-motivated and self-aware and it is something that is gained over time. He argues, “ in any case, I promise to use person, the sense of rational and self-conscious being, to capture those elements of popular sense if the human being that is not covered by a member of the species Homo Sapiens”.[166] He defined non-person as a sentient being with limited mental abilities.[167] His concept of a person is criticized with the following statements; “unclear, because awareness, freedom or intelligence are rarely defined; elitist, that they tend to exclude humans that do not fit the description; irrelevant, in that they favor individuals that possess those qualities”.[168] Traditional views always respected the value of life while respect for life is least in Peter Singer’s concept of person. Rationality and self-consciousness are the characteristics of a person. For him, if it is only added to humans it is a misleading one. He even adds all these qualities to animals too. Certain humans like fetuses, newborn infants, and mentally disabled ones are not persons because they lack these characteristics. In his view, only persons have the right to live. For him, the right to life is related to continued existence. Persons have more rights over the non-persons. “Person’s life has some distinctive values over and above the life of a merely sentient being”.[169] “The killing of a person is more seriously wrong than the killing of a being who is not a person”.[170] Traditional principles emphasized only the rationality of humans while Singer emphasized even the rationality of other sentient beings too.

For Aristotle, an ethical human possesses character excellence and behaves in the right thing, at the right time, and in the right way. Ethics is a virtue for him. The excellent aim of life is human flourishing or happiness.  We should begin everything from what is familiar to us or the fact that it is.[171] His ethical treaties must be based on functional arguments. How life can be a happy one, he spoke of the three types of life,  a life dedicated to vulgar pleasure; a life dedicated to fame and honor; and a life dedicated to contemplation.[172]  A life dedicated to contemplation is the highest happiness. Traditional principles underline virtuous aspects of ethics. Virtuous nature is no more appreciated in Singer’s principles.  Singer defined ethics as follows; “ ethics deals with such questions at all levels. Its subject consists of the fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong”.[173] Singer even rejected certain traditional views of ethics too.

Firstly, Singer opposes morality “as a system of nasty puritanical prohibitions, mainly designed to stop people having fun”.[174] Secondly, “ethics is not an ideal system that is noble in theory but no good in practice”.[175]  Thirdly, “ethics is not something intelligible only in the context of religion”.[176] In Singer’s view, traditionally we believe that religion is the only thing that provides a reason for what is right and virtuous will be rewarded with eternal bliss and the rest will be thrown into hell.[177] According to Singer, to be moral, it is not necessary to believe in heaven or hell. But what we need is “the attitudes of benevolence and sympathy for others”.[178] Fourthly, Singer rejects the claim of the centuries, “ethics is relative or subjective”.[179] and he proposed a universal validity of it by presenting reason as the factor of ethics.[180] What we should do is to make an evaluation on a particular issue by asking whether it is done through the accurate ethical standards or through the mistakenly ethical standards. For Singer,” if they believe, for any reason, that it is right to do as they are doing”.[181] The reason as the ultimate deciding factor. Singer says; “ The notion of living according to ethical standards is tied up with the notion of defending the way one is living, of giving a reason for it, of justifying it”.[182] According to Singer, ethical principles should not be vindicated concerning any partial or sectional group. Ethics gets hold of a universal point of view.[183] That means our ethical judgments should go beyond our own whims and fancies. In his point, “Ethics requires us to go beyond ‘I’ and 'you' to the universal law, the universalisable judgment, the standpoint of the impartial spectator or ideal observer, or whatever we choose to call it”.[184] Peter Singer views ethics from the point of view of the universe.

In the traditional way, we speak of our moral personality, the hierarchy of intelligence, etc. In relation to the principle of equality, Singer says; equality does not rest on the possession of hierarchy of intelligence, moral personality, rationality, or similar matters of fact.[185] The basic principle of equality is the principle of equal consideration of interests.[186]

The essence of the principle of equal consideration of interests is that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions. This means that if only X and Y would be affected by a possible action, and if X stands to lose more than Y stands to gain, it is better not to do the act. We cannot, if we accept the principle of equal consideration of interests, say that doing the act is better, despite the facts described because we are more concerned about Y than we are about X. What the principle really amounts to is this: an interest is an interest, whoever's the interest it may be.[187]

We should not look at which continent, Jews, Gypsies, and Slaves or where we are.  The principle of equal consideration of interests acts like a pair of scales, weighing interests impartially. Therefore he says; only through this principle, we can rule out intelligence-based slave society, racism, sexism, discrimination to the disabled ones, etc. “The principle of equal consideration of interests, therefore, may be a defensible form of the principle that all humans are equal, a form that we can use in discussing more controversial issues about equality”.[188] His principle of justice is his equal consideration of the interests of all.

Singer always questioned human dignity, the sanctity of life. He questioned human dignity through objectification, instrumentalization, degradation, dehumanization, etc. humans have become mere instruments, they are not regarded as to end in itself. As I mentioned earlier, the autonomy is questioned. Singer is in favor of euthanasia, abortion, and disrespects of the sanctity of life. Sanctity of life is a principle of implied protection regarding aspects of sentient life that are said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of such value that they are not to be violated as a violation.[189]  For him, even the early borne children lack rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.[190] He gives only the least dignity and respect to those who lack rationality, autonomy, and consciousness.  Singer agrees and believes the notion of the sanctity of life ought to be discarded as outdated, unscientific, and irrelevant to understanding problems in contemporary bioethics.

Susan Lufkin Kranz sees Singer’s thinking as an affront to our common humanity.[191] For Kranz, Singer is not just aiming to overthrow traditional ethics; he is undermining ethics itself.[192] Adopting Singer’s ethical viewpoint would spell the death of ethics and of every human value.[193] Peter Singer is a dangerous philosopher because of his concept of moral status, it sketches towards which entities which we have duties and to which we don’t. According to his principles, we do not have any special status on earth only because of our humanness. What is most important is sentience. The ability of the one to feel pain and pleasure is the factor that underlines the preference. It proposes the moral significance of the many non-human beings and the immoral significance of humans in the early stages too. “Either humanity will retain its central position in the ethical universe, or else human ethics will come to an end and the values of the marketplace or some other horror will fill the vacuum”.[194] Spanish writer  Fernando Savater criticized Singer like this, “the problem is when ethics is projected exclusively on the safeguard of the sensory. In Singer, it seems that the important thing is to protect yourself from the pain, from the painful process to the beings that can discover it. I do not think is true even among human beings. Not even humans think that the only ethic is to avoid pain without more”.[195]  Singer just keeps away humans from the center of ethical principles. Susan Lufkin Kranz says;  “Moral deliberations ought never to disregard the human, however, because the human good is exactly what moral deliberation is primarily about”.[196]In other words, removing humans from the center of the ethical system will lead to the end of human ethics. When the central nature of humanity is removed from the ethics, it ends to be human, and then it fails to be ethical. The dignity of humanity is thrown into the garage.[197] In Peter Singer’s effective altruistic principles the traditional human dignity, sanctity of life are least bothered.

 

3.7 In demonstrating the affinity between the Church and Peter Singer

Jesus always tells us to love our own neighbors and to share our materials with the needy. Even in the last judgment people will be judged on the basis of our attitude towards our fellow being. Jesus tells those who fail to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, cloth the naked, shelter the homeless, and care for the sick will suffer the eternal punishment (Mt, 25,31-46). Church believes that God as the creator of everything and human beings are mere stewards of God’s properties. God’s own properties are given to human beings to secure our own necessities and of the necessities of our fellow beings. The church always insists us share the surplus with the needy than to spend on luxuries of life.

 In the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas presents almsgiving as a matter of precept. It is strictly obligatory as contrasting to supererogatory. It is a matter of precept under two conditions. Firstly, we have a surplus possession after fulfilling the needs of ours and our dependents.[198] Secondly, we have an awareness of someone who is in great need and only with my act, he or she can be helped.[199] Under these conditions, if we don’t act, it is the same killing him.[200] He also affirms “  the temporal goods which God grants us are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them, they belong not to us alone but also to such others as we are able to succor out of what we have over and above our needs”.[201]  Private property is a conditional right. One has to use the private property by considering God as the creator and owner and one must share his excess to the one who is in need.[202] He argues; Thing which is human right cannot derogate from the natural right or divine right. Now, according to the natural order established by the divine providence, inferior things are ordained to supply the needs of men. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence, whatever goods some have in superabundance are due, by natural law to the sustenance of the poor.[203]  Material things are meant for the sustenance of human beings. When the affluent fails to give their surplus to the needy, the third party like the government can take coercion for the redistribution.

This view of Aquinas dates back to St. Basil of Caesarea and St. Ambrose. Basil writes as follows;

Is he not called a thief who strips a man of his clothes? And he who will not clothe the naked when he can, is he deserving of a different appellation? The bread that you keep in your possession belongs to the hungry; the cloak in your closet, to the naked; the shoes that you allow to rot, to the barefooted, and your hoarded silver, to the indigent. Hence you have done injustice to as many as you have failed to help.[204]

Ambrose also wrote in the same direction by placing our superabundance as for the needy.

you are not giving to the poor anything that is yours but is rather restoring something that is his. For you have appropriated to yourself goods that were intended for the common use of all. The earth is for all, not merely for the rich; yet the number of those who possess merely their own is smaller than the number of those who enjoy more than their proper share. You are but paying a debt, not giving alms. [205]

In this attitude, Peter Singer's concept of duties of the affluent towards the needy has certain similarities, even though his reasoning does not accept the revelation and the existence of God. Affluent has a strict obligation to the needy. But Singer’s attitude is different from the Christian position. Each and every individual is an end, not mere means. One individual should not be used by the other for the achievement of their goals without his or her consent.[206] The individual is inviable.[207] If one individual is used by the other for the common good or for social security, what happens is the rejection of the recognition of the separateness of the individual. In theories of libertarianism[208], we read like this, human beings have rights not to be coerced and humans have a responsibility not to coerce others too.[209] They also tell that coercion can be permitted to prevent the unjust coercive acts.[210] In Singer’s view what we see is strong coercion and individuals as mere means. Christians believe in the inviolability of individuals. In Christian ethics, treating others also include giving what is others. When affluent do not do their responsibility towards the needy they simply consider them as mere means.[211] As Christians, we have an obligation to give any assistance to needy in an effective way.

 

3.8 Christain approaches different from Peter Singer

Effective altruism is always a philosophical approach to minimize suffering. Christians speak of the suffering of the individual ones while the utilitarian concept always underlines the quantifiable entity of the suffering than the individual one. Even though Peter Singer’s utilitarianism and Christians speak of love and compassion, they use it in opposite ethical views. Whenever we see suffering in the world, we always ask what is the reason and what is the cause of suffering? I think that the answers can be given with faith and in the persons of goodwill. 

Faith tells original sin and the demons as the reasons for suffering. At the point of the persons of goodwill, persons who fail to show love as the reason for suffering. Discussing the reason for suffering, I would like to present the attitude of Pope John Paul II, suffering is present in order to unbridle or unleash love.[212]  He discussed the word ‘unleashing’ in three different senses; a) “in the interior life of persons as the opening of a certain interior disposition of the heart, a sensitivity of heart which has an emotional expression unique to it”.[213]  b) “externally giving birth to works of love towards neighbor.”[214]  c) and “culturally transforming the whole of human civilization into the civilization of love”.[215]  Whatever be the noble end, the man should be limited to mere means for the achievement of this end. Conducive nature of suffering is the realization of love. According to him, those who help the suffered are the persons who nurtured the interior practice of love.[216] Suffering is to show the flourishing of the love of humans to the needy.

Even though Bentham, Mill, and Peter Singer based on their consequentialist principle, hedonistic principle, and the principle of extent had developed utilitarianism, their concept of suffering is a type a quantifiable entity. The happiness of the greatest number is their basic view. Instead of speaking of the fulfillment of the pleasure, Singer spoke of the fulfillment of the preference and fulfillment of the interests. That which gives the most satisfaction is the must act for Singer as I mentioned in the earlier chapter. Action that would increase the welfare of all is to be emphasized. For him, suffering is contrary to preference fulfillment.  Giving more concern for our own leisure and enjoyment leads to moral failure because it would not maximize or fulfill the preference of the greatest number of people.

For Singer, the love of Christians differs from his love concept. He speaks of two mutually exclusive and competitive loves: individual love and non-individual love.[217] To explain this, the Christian concept of love for the other as love for each a succession of individuals.[218] He defined individual love like the love faced by two persons looking at each other.[219] He explains the word succession as follows; succession as the help and attention given to the other after giving full attention to oneself.[220] For Singer, non-individual love is the love of humankind.[221] He called Christian concepts as merely irrational because it does doesn’t look at the calculation of the rates.[222] Consequentialists like Singer believe that every event is the focus to our control and the moral agent being beneficent intervenes in the world with beneficence.  Therefore, consequentialist like Singer considers “to split suffering off from the individual who suffers in order to obtain an entity which can be measured. Then ethical decisions are determined on the basis of actions that minimize the overall suffering of the world. Even the single death for reduction of the overall suffering also is justified in this context”.[223]  

Christians never accept to severe the suffering of the one who experiences it. For Christians, suffering and individual are important. But for Peter Singer, suffering is prior to the individual. In the Christian view, suffering is intended to unleash love because there is a harmony between the suffering and individual.[224] They try to three ways of unleashing of love that I had mentioned earlier with the words of John Paul II.  Unleashing of love is impossible in the concepts of Singer. His concern is only for the suffering nor for the individual. Christian perspectives have two significant elements. One is the element of justice. As I mentioned earlier the words of Ambrose, ‘you are not giving to the poor man anything that is yours but is rather restoring something that is his. For you have appropriated to yourself goods that were intended for the common use of all’. The second is the improvement of life in certain other ways. As Ambrose said, ‘sell your gold and buy salvation; sell your jewel and buy the kingdom of God; sell your land and buy eternal life’.[225]  Pope Paul VI had stressed the dangers of not giving too. ‘Besides the rich will be the first to benefit as a result. Otherwise, their continued greed will surely call down upon them the judgment’.[226]

 In the Christian concepts, there is always an internal change for the one who shares and helps in the form of spiritual liberation and richness of love while Singer’s concepts look only at the exclusive focus on the external acts or help.  The act of helping is greater than the richness of love. From the Christian perspective, two points come together; moral good of the benefactor and the objective good of the recipient.[227]  Sometimes the amount of help may be less and at the same time, love can be very great. Sometimes the help will be very great but love is very small. Christians do not reduce love to the mere institution of charity too.[228] The Catholic Church teaches that ‘every human being is personally called to witness love in suffering. Institutions are good but they can’t replace the worthiness of the human heart, human compassion, human initiative, and human love. Suffering for us is not merely physical suffering but it is of the suffering of the soul too’.[229]  Unleashing of love can be understood only to the one who participates in suffering and gives a personal response.

Even Peter Singer recognized the intrinsic values of a person with his mother who is affected by Alzheimer’s disease. According to Singer’s theories, she does not any capacity of reason and she should be killed but Singer has not done it because his life is against his theories. He and his sister give healthcare aids to his mother.[230] Even though he does not believe in the catholic principles he can’t but act in a catholic way here.  He himself has told it’s too difficult to practice when it comes to the dear one. According to Peter J. Colosi, Singer has entered into the realm of reunifying suffering with the one whom one loves.[231]  Love really unbolts one’s life to the worthiness of one person: uniqueness. Love that springs from the soul helps the one to see the humanity and unique worthiness of human beings and that will inspire each and every being to more and more love. In Singer’s theories, killing as preferred for the reduction of suffering. It is not loved but it’s merely an abandonment of love. It is not a reasonable reason too. According to the Christians, the deepest reason for an act should be the inner worthiness of a person. Love is that which reveals the inner worthiness of human beings. When many had criticized him for his actions towards mother as an act against his theories and Singer himself has told like this; ‘suppose, however, that it was crystal clear that the money could do more good elsewhere. Then I could be doing wrong in spending it on my mother, just as I do wrong when I spend on myself or my family, money that could do more good if donated to an organization that helps people in much greater need than we are. I freely admit not to doing all that o should, but I could do it, and the fact that I do not do it does not vitiate the claim that it is what it should do’.[232]   His act himself has become against his theories explained in his books. Even though he does not accept the Christian theories, love always matters. I think here it is better to quote the opening lines of Singer in Practical Ethics, “ethics is not an ideal system that is noble in theory but no good in practice. The reverse is closer to the truth; an ethical judgment that us no good in practice must suffer from theoretical defect”.[233]  Even though he does not accept the intrinsic worthiness of human beings, he can’t but live daily life without it.

When Christianity gives more importance to the intrinsic worthiness of human beings, we should not think that it rejects the external acts of minimizing suffering. All the charitable attitudes of Christianity underline the necessity of the external acts too. We should not identify the salvific nature of suffering as the attitude of passivity. All Popes and all the catholic teachings emphasize gospel as the negation of passivity in the face of suffering.  Christianity does not stop at verbal compassion and sympathy; it goes out to share and try its level best to reduce the sufferings of the world. The church always teaches the world that “interior love is a direct result of a genuine exterior giving of oneself”.[234]   All these aspects lead Christianity to the civilization of love, the ultimate unleashing of love. The ultimate solution to all the suffering of the world is in the heart of every human being.  All the injustice of the world must be at first removed from the heart and then an act of self-giving should be generated out of the love of Christ towards the love of humankind. In the inner heart of human being have to feel the necessity of the elimination of worldwide suffering.[235] When we the humans’ actions founded and sprouted out of the love of Christ, humans work hard to construct a society of love and culture of life. Out of the love of God, every human carries an act of self-giving too.[236] It is the revelation of the true nature of human hood.  As John Paul II highlighted that “making a sincere self-gift … is the most important dimension of the civilization of love”.[237]  If such love is absent, the relief of suffering on a larger scale will not take place. Whenever human being fails to offer oneself as self-gift, one rejects the inherent dignity of human being, reduces humans into a utilitarian manner by considering humans as an instrument for the personal gain and pleasure and becomes mere promotor of the culture of death.  Universal love, universal brotherhood, and universal peace will sprout out of this civilization of love. The joy of love will be generated out of it.

To build up a civilization of love personal willingness and personal responsibility have to be brought out of love. As Pope Benedict reminds us in Deus Caritas Est, “My deep personal sharing in the needs and sufferings of others becomes a sharing of my very self with them”.[238]  John Paul II’s reminder for us all to be a “people of life and a people for life”.[239]Pope Francis also exhorts the world by telling the necessity of the civilization of love in the present world through his speeches.  By building a civilization of love, we march into the fraternal charity with pure love. If Singer wants to achieve his aim of the greatest good of the greatest number, it is only possible through the civilization of love by admitting the inviolable richness of every human being.  By building a civilization of love, let us march into the fraternal charity with pure love. Then the most good of the world will be generated and the highest happiness will have emerged. Be the propagator of the civilization of love. Therefore, what we need is the extension of God’s love towards the world.  

 

3.9 Conclusion

Singer’s Effective altruism always speaks of the big difference that I can make with pieces of evidence, sufficient reasoning, honest commitment, and Impartiality. It includes effective ways to improve the situations of the world. What their aim is to reduce suffering and increase happiness. It is the same as the use of reason and analysis to help the needy in its effectiveness. What I have tried all though this chapter is to critically evaluate the principles proposed by Singer for the philosophy of effective altruism and different proposals made by different philosophers and the similarities and dissimilarities between the catholic perspective and Singer’s perspectives. To eradicate the sufferings of the world and for effective altruism, his suggestion was the need for the principle of sacrifice. His view was to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to, morally to do it. In his theory, he could not make any clear distinction between obligatory and supererogatory acts. He argued every act that is necessary to reduce suffering as obligatory. Because of its highly demanded obligations, he was criticized with impracticability, demandingness objection, and integrity objection. His theory questioned the integrity of human beings, was highly demandable, and did not consider the self-love perspective of human beings. Even Indian philosophy had importance to sva-dharma. Without fulfilling the sva-dharma, whatever human beings do is adharma. Bob Corbet and Thomas Negal argued for the necessity of including can in the ought of the Singer. Without those, they thought of the impracticability of Singer’s principles. Murphy’s collective principle of beneficence, Cullity’s moderating demand view, Samuel Scheffler’s hybrid theory, John Praesto’s s merging principle had critically evaluated Singer’s theories and made a lot of suggestions. All theories have their own defects and it is better to take the positives of all. In Christianity, suffering and individual are important. Christianity respects the integrity of the person but Singer gave priority to happiness and reducing the suffering of the person and least importance to human integrity. Therefore, what we need is effective altruism through the civilization of love as an extension of God’s love and not mere effective altruism through the civilization of sufficient reason with mere shreds of evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Singer seems absolute poverty as a condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency.   Relative poverty is the status of people in which they are deficient of the minutest quantity of income to live a life according to the standards of the society where they live. Cf. P. SINGER, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, 33-44.

[2] Cf. ibid., 47.

[3] Cf. ibid., 49.

[4] P. SINGER, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, 15-16.

[5] Cf. ibid.

[6] Cf. ibid

[7] Cf. ibid

[8] Ibid., 15.

[9] T. ORD, “Global poverty and the demands of morality”, ed. J. PERRY, God, the good and the utilitarianism: perspectives on Peter Singer (Cambridge 2014) 178.

[10] Cf. ibid., 179.

[11] Cf. ibid., 21.

[12] Cf. ibid., 22.

[13] Cf. J. RACHELS, The Elements of Moral Philosophy (New York 2003) 103.

[14] Cf. ibid., 111.

[15] Cf. ibid., 116.

[16] When in addition to having a right to do something, a person is morally required to do that thing because of a role assumed or an agreement, we say the person has an ethical obligation or duty as well as a right to do the thing in question.

[17] It means to have the power or quality of deciding

[18] Cf. P. SINGER, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, 21.

[19] Cf. B. WILLIAMS, “Critique of utilitarianism”, in: J. SMART - B. WILLIAMS (eds.), Utilitarianism: For and Against (Cambridge 1973), 88.

[20] Cf. ibid., 89.

[21] Cf. D. SOBEL, “The impotence of the demandingness objection”: Philosophers’ Imprint 7 (2007) 3.

[22] Cf. ibid., 4.

[23] Cf. T. MULGAN, The Demands of Consequentialism (Oxford 2001) 173.

[24] Cf. ibid., 196.

[25] Cf. D. SOBEL, “The impotence of the demandingness objection”: Philosophers’ Imprint 7 (2007) 6.

[26] Cf. B. HOOKER, Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-consequentialist Theory of Morality (Oxford 2000) 148.

[27] B. HOOKER, “Is Rule-Consequentialism a Rubber Duck?”: Analysis, 54.2 (1994) 94.

[28] H. SIDGWICK, The Methods of Ethics (London 1907) 65-68. Henry Sidgwick thought that it is possible for us to reach, by means of reasoning, an objective standpoint that is detached from our own perspective. He called it “the point of view of the universe”.

[29] Cf. R. M. HARE, Moral Thinking (Oxford 1981) 111. Hare calls us to imagine a being with super human powers of thought, knowledge and without any human weakness. He named it as an ideal moral reasoner.

[30] Cf. R. FIRTH, “Ethical Absolutism and the Ideal Observer”: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 12 (1952) 320.  Ideal observer theory states that ethical judgments should be interpreted as statements about the judgments that a neutral and fully informed observer would make; "x is good" means "an ideal observer would approve of x".

[31] Cf. P. SINGER, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, 68.

[32] Cf. T. NAGAL, The Possibility of Altruism (New Jersey1970) 4.

[33] Cf. ibid., 5.

[34] P. SINGER, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, 139.

[35] Cf. B. BARRY, Theories of Justice (California 1995) 23.

[36] J.S. MILL, utilitarianism (London² 1863) 44. 

[37] Cf. P. SINGER, The Most Good You Can Do, 91.

[38] Cf. ibid., 93.

[39] Cf. ibid., 94.

[40] Cf. W.  MACASKILL, “Giving Isn’t Demanding”,  ed. P. WOODRUFF, Ethics of Giving (Oxford 2018) 178.  

[41] Cf. H. SIDGWICK, Methods of Ethics, 360.

[42] Cf. P. SINGER, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, xv-xvi.

[43] B. WILLIAMS, “Critique of utilitarianism”, in: J. SMART - B. WILLIAMS (eds.), Utilitarianism: For and Against, 89.

[44] Cf. ibid.

[45] Cf. ibid., 90.

[46] Cf. ibid., 93.

[47] Cf. ibid., 98.

[48] Cf. ibid., 116.

[49] Cf. ibid., 118.

[50] Cf. ibid., 119.

[51] Cf. ibid., 121.

[52] S. SCHEFFLER, “What is Egalitarianism?”: Philosophy and public affairs, Volume 31, Issue 1 (2003) 62.

[53] Cf. S. SCHEFFLER, The Rejection of Consequentialism (Oxford 1994)  73.

[54] Ibid., 74.

[55] Ibid., 76.

[56] S. SCHEFFLER, “What is Egalitarianism?”:  Philosophy and public affairs, Volume 31, Issue 1 (2003) 63.

[57] Cf. M. O. EZE; Intellectual History in Contemporary South Africa (New York, 2010) 189.

[58] Ibid., 190-191.

[59] Cf. ibid., 193.

[60] Cf. ibid., 194.

[61] Cf. ibid., 196.

[62] Cf. J. L. MACKIE, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (London 1977) 68.

[63] Ibid., 125.

[64] Cf. ibid., 127.

[65] Cf. ibid., 128.

[66] L. JING, "Self-love and morality: Beyond egoism and altruism", in: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations/AAI3201925.

[67] S. PARMESHWARANAND, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Vedic Terms, Volume 1 (New Delhi 2000) 245. 

[68]  Mahabharata, Shanti Parva 109:9.

[69] Cf. Mahabharata, Shanti Parva 109: 13.

[70] Bhagavad Gita 3:13.

[71] Cf. R. M. JINDAL, Managing Seva in Times of Great Change (Indiana 2015) 45.

[72] Cf. ibid., 46

[73] Cf. ibid.

[74] Cf. Maha Upanishad, 6.71–75.

[75] Cf. T. CHATTERGEE, Knowledge and Freedom in Indian Philosophy (Delhi 1948) 65.

[76] Cf. ibid., 66.

[77] Cf.  N. KAUSHAL - S. MISHRA, “Altruism as component of leadership: an Indian perspective”: Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics 6 (2018) 5.

[78] Cf. ibid., 6.

[79] Cf. T. CHATTERGEE, Knowledge and Freedom in Indian Philosophy, 67.

[80] Cf. ibid., 68.

[81] Cf. B. CORBETT, “Moral Obligations to distant others”: The fall (1995) 2.

[82] Cf. ibid.,3.

[83] Cf. P. SINGER, The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty, 15-16. 

[84] B. CORBETT, “Moral Obligations to distant others”: The fall (1995) 3.

[85] Ibid., 4.

[86] Cf. ibid.

[87] Cf. ibid.

[88] B. CORBETT, “Moral Obligations to distant others”: The fall (1995) 3.

[89] Ibid.

[90] Ibid.

[91] Cf. T. NAGEL, The Possibility of Altruism (Princeton 1970) 136-138.

[92] T. NAGEL, The View from Nowhere (Oxford 1986) 153.

[93] Cf. L.B. MURPHY, “The Demands of beneficence”: Philosophy and Public Affairs 22, no. 4 (1993) 280.

[94] Ibid., 281.

[95] L.B. MURPHY, Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory (Oxford 2000) 75. 

[96] Ibid., 76.

[97] Cf. L.B. MURPHY, “The Demands of beneficence”: Philosophy and Public Affairs 22, no. 4 (1993) 281.

[98] Cf. Y. KANYGINA, The Demandingness objection to Peter Singer’s Accounts of Our Obligations to World Poor (Hungry 2011) 48.

[99] Cf. L.B. MURPHY, Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory, 117.

[100] Ibid., 77.

[101] Ibid., 132-133.

[102] Cf. Y. KANYGINA, The Demandingness objection to Peter Singer’s Accounts of Our Obligations to World Poor, 49.

[103] Cf. ibid.

[104] Cf. ibid., 50.

[105] Cf. L.B. MURPHY, Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory, 75.

[106] Ibid., 77.

[107] Cf. ibid., 117.

[108] Cf. ibid., 122.

[109] Ibid., 123.

[110] Cf. S. J. WHITE, “Responsibility and the demands of morality”: The Journal of Moral Philosophy 14 (2017) 23.

[111] Cf. ibid., 24.

[112] Cf. ibid., 26.

[113] Cf. B. WILLIAMS, "Moral Luck”, ed. D. STATMAN, Moral Luck (New York 1993) 35-55.

[114] G. CULLITY, The Moral Demands of Affluence (Oxford 2004) 73.

[115] Cf. ibid., 74.

[116] P. PETTIT, The Consequentialist Perspective in Three Methods of Ethics (Oxford, 1997) 163-164.

[117] Cf. L.B. MURPHY, Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory,140.

[118] Cf. ibid., 92.

[119] Cf. ibid., 141.

[120] Cf. ibid., 143.

[121] G. CULLITY, The Moral Demands of Affluence, 69.

[122] Ibid.

[123] Cf. ibid., 71.

[124] Cf. ibid., 72.

[125] G. CULLITY, The Moral Demands of Affluence, 10.

[126] Ibid., 136.

[127] Cf. ibid., 191.

[128] Cf. Ibid.

[129] Cf. ibid.

[130] Ibid., 186.

[131] G. CULLITY, “Beneficence”, in: R. E. ASHCROFT - A. DAWSON -  H. DRAPER - J. R. MCMILLAN (eds.), Principles of Health Care Ethics (New Jersey 2007) 23.

[132] Cf. ibid., 24.

[133] G. CULLITY, The Moral Demands of Affluence, 134.

[134] Cf. ibid., 135.

[135] Cf. ibid., 136.

[136] Ibid., 137.

[137] Ibid., 138.

[138] J. BRAND-BALLARD, “The Moral Demands of Affluence”, in: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-moral-demands-of-affluence/.

[139] Ibid.

[140] G. CULLITY, The Moral Demands of Affluence, 175.

[141] Cf. ibid., 177.

[142] Ibid., 150.

[143] S. SCHEFFLER, “Prerogative without restrictions”:  Philosophical perspectives 6 (1992) 377. 

[144] S. SCHEFFLER, The Rejection of Consequentialism (Oxford 1994) 60.

[145] Ibid., 61.

[146] S. SCHEFFLER, “Prerogative without restrictions”:  Philosophical perspectives 6 (1992) 378.

[147] S. SCHEFFLER, The Rejection of Consequentialism, 62.

[148] Cf. Ibid., 66-69

[149] Cf. J. PRAESTO, “Principles of beneficence: Practical and moral considerations” in:

http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:910897/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

[150] Ibid., 21.

[151] Cf. L.B. MURPHY, Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory, 64.

[152] G. CULLITY, The Moral Demands of Affluence, 174.

[153] Cf. J. PRAESTO, “Principles of beneficence: Practical and moral considerations”, 22.

[154] Cf. ibid.

[155] Ibid., 23.

[156] Cf. ibid.

[157] Cf. ibid.

[158] Cf. ibid, 28.

[159] Autonomy is the capacity to think, decide and act on the basis of such thought and decision, freely and independently.

[160] Beneficence emphasizes the moral importance of doing good to others; do what is best for the other.

[161] We have a prima facie duty not to harm anyone

[162] Justice is a principle with four components: distributive justice; respect for the law; rights and retributive justice. Distributive justice is concerned with the equitable allocation of resources; the second refers to whether the fact that an act is or is not against the law, is of moral relevance; rights are considered to be special advantages with correlative duties to provide them; retributive justice refers to making right when a wrong has been perpetrated.

[163] Cf.. J. LENNOX, "Aristotle's Biology", in: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford 2018) 320. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/ (18 Feb 2020)

[164] P. SINGER, Practical Ethics, 22.

[165] Cf. T. KALITA, Critical Evaluation of Peter Singer’s Ethics, 26.

[166]  P. SINGER, Practical Ethics, 87.

[167]  Cf. ibid., 91-92.

[168]  T. KALITA, Critical Evaluation of Peter Singer’s Ethics, 28.

[169]  P. SINGER, Practical Ethics, 100.  

[170]  Ibid., 110.

[171]  Cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I.1095b 2-13

[172]  Cf. Nicomachean Ethics I.1095b17-19.

[173] P. SINGER, Ethics (Chicago 1985) 6.

[174] P. SINGER, Practical Ethics, 1.

[175] Ibid., 2.

[176] Ibid., 3.

[177] Ibid., 4.

[178] Ibid.

[179] Ibid., 5.

[180] Cf. ibid., 7.

[181] Ibid., 10.

[182] Ibid.

[183] Cf. ibid., 11.

[184] Ibid., 12.

[185] Cf. ibid., 20.

[186] Cf. ibid., 21.

[187] Ibid., 22.

[188] Ibid.,23.

[189]  Cf. A. FISHER, Catholic Bioethics for a New Millennium (Cambridge 2011)238–239.

[190] Cf. P. SINGER, Practical Ethics, 175-179.

[191] Cf. S. L. KRANZ, Refuting Peter Singer's Ethical Theory :The Importance of Human Dignity (Westportcoon 2002) xiv.

[192] Cf. ibid., 13.

[193] Cf. ibid., 15.

[194] Ibid., 15.

[195] El problema es cuando la ética se proyecta exclusivamente sobre la salvaguardia de lo sensorial. En Singer parece que lo importante es que se salvaguarde del dolor, del proceso del dolor, a los seres que pueden descubrirlo. Lo cual yo no creo que sea verdad ni entre los seres humanos. Ni siquiera de los humanos creo que la única ética sea la de evitar sin más el dolor.An interview of Fernando Savater with Arcadi Espada,in https://www.elmundo.es/suplementos/magazine/2009/486/1232366706.html

[196] S. L. KRANZ, Refuting Peter Singer's Ethical Theory :The Importance of Human Dignity, 105.

[197] Cf. S. L. KRANZ, Refuting Peter Singer's Ethical Theory :The Importance of Human Dignity, 17.

[198] Cf. T. AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae II, Q .32, a.5, 4594

[199] Cf. Ibid.

[200] Cf. Ibid.

[201] Cf. ibid. 

[202] Cf. T. AQUINAS, Summa Theologiae II-II Q. 66, a.1, 5038.

[203] Cf. ibid., Q 66, a. 7, 5051.

[204] BASIL OF CAESAREA (372), “Homily on Luke 12,18”, trans - ed. W. SHEWRING, Rich and Poor in Christian Tradition (London 1948) 51.

[205] AMBROSE OF MILAN (395), “De Nabuthe Jezraelita”, trans - ed.   W. SHEWRING, Rich and Poor in Christian Tradition (London 1948) 69.

[206] Cf. J. S. SPOERL, “Peter Singer on famine, affluence and morality: a Christian response”: The American Journal of Jurisprudence, volume 37 (1992) 115.

[207] Cf. ibid., 118.

[208] Cf. J. D. CARLSON, "Libertarianism", in: MILLER – R. WILBURN (eds), The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America (London 2012) 1006.

[209] Cf. ibid., 1007.

[210] Cf. ibid.

[211] Cf. J. S. SPOERL, “Peter Singer on famine, affluence and morality: a Christian response”: The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 120.

[212] Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Salvifici Doloris, 10-11.

[213] Ibid., 28.

[214] Ibid., 30.

[215] Ibid.

[216] P.J. COLOSY, “John Paul II and Christian personalism vs Peter Singer and utilitarianism: Two radically opposed conceptions of nature and meaning of suffering”: Ethics Education, Volume 15 (2009) 32.

[217] Cf. P. SINGER, The Expanding Circle (Oxford 1981) 160.

[218] Cf. ibid., 161.

[219] Cf. ibid., 162.

[220] Cf. P. SINGER, “A refutation of ordinary morality”: Ethics 101.3 (1991) 625.

[221] Cf. ibid., 626.

[222] Cf. ibid.

[223] P.J. COLOSY, “John Paul II and Christian personalism vs Peter Singer and utilitarianism: Two radically opposed conceptions of nature and meaning of suffering”: Ethics Education, volume 15 (2009) 36.

[224] Cf. ibid, 37.

[225] AMBROSE OF MILAN (395), “De Nabuthe Jezraelita”, in:  W. SHEWRING (trans. ed), Rich and Poor in Christian Tradition (London 1948) 69.

[226] Cf. PAUL VI, Populorum Progressio, 49.

[227] Cf. J. H. CROSBY, The Nature of Love (Indiana 2009) 64.

[228] Cf. ibid., 65.

[229] Cf. ibid.

[230] Cf. P.J. COLOSY, “John Paul II and Christian personalism vs Peter Singer and utilitarianism: Two radically opposed conceptions of nature and meaning of suffering”: Ethics Education, volume 15 (2009) 40.

[231] Cf. ibid.

[232] Cf. P. SINGER, “A Response”, in D. JAMIESON (ed) Singer and his critics (Oxford 1999) 270.

[233] P. SINGER, Practical Ethics, 2.

[234] Cf. C. ANDERSON, A civilization of love (New York 2009) 124.

[235] Cf. ibid., 130.

[236] Cf. ibid.

[237] JOHN PAUL II, Gratissimam Sane, 14. 

[238] BENEDICT XVI, Deus Caritas Est, 34.

[239] JOHN PAUL II, Evangelium Vitae, 6.