Read the Singer Solution to World Poverty closely and carefully
Watch Singer pose a similar moral question in his Drowning Child Thought Experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBMZiaD-OYo
On the Week 9 discussion board, answer one or two of the following questions:
Is Singer’s use of reasoning by analogy an effective rhetorical strategy? Can revealing moral hypocrisy be an effective way of making an argument? Is there a risk here?
Is one of the analogies offered more persuasive than others? Why or why not?
Assume that we agree that we have an obligation to rescue the child in the Drowning Child thought experiment. Now let us suppose that there are other capable adults walking past who would also be able to rescue the child but who are ignoring the child’s plight. Does their failure mean that you no longer have a duty to rescue the child? What, if anything, does this tell us about our obligation to the global poor?
Imagine that you are aware that you will not come to any bodily harm if you attempt to rescue the drowning child, but you are not certain that your efforts will make any difference to how things end. You do not know that someone else will not save the child if you do not wade into the water and you do now know that your attempt will be successful in saving this child (it may already be too late). Does changing this scenario change your assessment of our moral responsibilities? Is this a better way of capturing the real ethical challenge posed by global poverty?
Singer uses the pronoun ‘we’ throughout the written piece. Why do you think this is the case and how does this language contribute to ethos and pathos?
Do you think that we have a moral duty to aid the global poor? Why or why not? How is that duty affected by the extent of the sacrifice required and/or the contributions of others?
