Question

What do you think is the strongest objection to Singer's position? How do you think Singer would reply to this objection? Do you think that the objection shows that Singer's theory is incorrect? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Schachter and Singer developed the two-factor theory of emotion.

- Suggests that emotional experience comes from a combination of a physical state of arousal and a cognition that makes best sense of the situation the person is in.

e.g. the two-factor theory of emotion argues that when people become aroused they look for cues as to why they feel the way they do. (from the environment and interpret their arousal in relation to this. Therefore any emotional experience is a combination of physiological arousal and a cognitive interpretation.

Singer's argument is "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad". "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it"

Objections :-

Objection #1: Premise #1 is false

But it can be modified with the introduction of a disjunction: If it is possible to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing or risking anything of comparable moral significance, then you ought to prevent that something

Objection #2: Inequality among obligations

We may grant that all starving children are equal, but our obligations to those children are not equal

Objection #3 conceptual confusion

singer is saying we HAVE to give to charity, which is false. charity is something that goes above and beyond our minimum moral obligation so we are not morally obligated to do it

Objection #4 Proximity matters ; eg - I can see the child drowning infront of me , I can't see the child starving in Bengali .