I would encourage you and other commentators to read Singer’s article Poverty, Affluence and Morality in which he develops his argument in more detail. It’s an extremely easy read and not overly long either (less than 20 pages). He explicitly adresses the potentially overwhelming nature of our obligations. He also addresses the issue of overpopulation that Vanilla Cabs raises. If I had more time, I’d provide a summary of what he says, but unfortunately I’ll have to leave this for someone else.
So it’s worth understanding that this analogy is where his argument begins and not where it ends. I don’t think he would claim that you should make your decision upon the basis of this thought experiment by itself.
It looks like Singer subscribes to the maxim, “Give until you’re unable to take care of yourself and your loved ones.”
I like this framing better than the drowning child analogy since the trigger for the action pattern of giving is well-defined. Thanks for pointing this article out, Chris_Leong.
He suggests that he subscribes to such a maximum, but also proposes a weaker maxim—that we should give unless the bad that would happen to us is comparable in moral significance to the harm we would prevent (note: this says comparable in moral significance, not equal in morally significance).
I would encourage you and other commentators to read Singer’s article Poverty, Affluence and Morality in which he develops his argument in more detail. It’s an extremely easy read and not overly long either (less than 20 pages). He explicitly adresses the potentially overwhelming nature of our obligations. He also addresses the issue of overpopulation that Vanilla Cabs raises. If I had more time, I’d provide a summary of what he says, but unfortunately I’ll have to leave this for someone else.
So it’s worth understanding that this analogy is where his argument begins and not where it ends. I don’t think he would claim that you should make your decision upon the basis of this thought experiment by itself.
It looks like Singer subscribes to the maxim, “Give until you’re unable to take care of yourself and your loved ones.”
I like this framing better than the drowning child analogy since the trigger for the action pattern of giving is well-defined. Thanks for pointing this article out, Chris_Leong.
He suggests that he subscribes to such a maximum, but also proposes a weaker maxim—that we should give unless the bad that would happen to us is comparable in moral significance to the harm we would prevent (note: this says comparable in moral significance, not equal in morally significance).