I don’t know if Singer has himself answered Timmerman (I searched but didn’t find anything), but based on what I have read of Singer, wouldn’t his answer be that yes, Lisa must go on saving drowning children? That she must attend to her bank balance only so far as necessary to maximise the children saved, and ignore such frivolities as the theatre? That’s what it comes down to, for Singer: using one’s resources to do all the good you can do.
You are probably right that Singer would bite the bullet and say that Unlucky Lisa is not permitted to go to the theatre (even once). This is another thing, then, that I think Singer gets wrong (as well as—as stated in the essay—that PPBO is true/necessary for the argument of FAM).
Despite disagreeing with Singer on these important points, I still see myself as defending him and his project. After all, Singer didn’t simply say ‘Utilitarianism is true; therefore, we ought to be doing more than we are to help those suffering and dying from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care.’ Doing applies/practical ethics isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be, in my opinion) like this. The best arguments in practical ethics will try as much as they can to rely only on premises almost anyone would accept, or at least which people with different background convictions and beliefs regarding normative ethical theory could accept.
I don’t know if Singer has himself answered Timmerman (I searched but didn’t find anything), but based on what I have read of Singer, wouldn’t his answer be that yes, Lisa must go on saving drowning children? That she must attend to her bank balance only so far as necessary to maximise the children saved, and ignore such frivolities as the theatre? That’s what it comes down to, for Singer: using one’s resources to do all the good you can do.
You are probably right that Singer would bite the bullet and say that Unlucky Lisa is not permitted to go to the theatre (even once). This is another thing, then, that I think Singer gets wrong (as well as—as stated in the essay—that PPBO is true/necessary for the argument of FAM).
Despite disagreeing with Singer on these important points, I still see myself as defending him and his project. After all, Singer didn’t simply say ‘Utilitarianism is true; therefore, we ought to be doing more than we are to help those suffering and dying from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care.’ Doing applies/practical ethics isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be, in my opinion) like this. The best arguments in practical ethics will try as much as they can to rely only on premises almost anyone would accept, or at least which people with different background convictions and beliefs regarding normative ethical theory could accept.