is not strictly required--its a nice thing to do, but one's basic moral obligations don' t require What(3*)suggests is that many of the things we do with our money, time, and energy, are morally insignificant, and this poses a serious moral problem; as the TV ads have been pointing out for decades--only $17/month will provide a child with food, clothing, and education. It isn't hard to spend that much on cappuccino, or on candy bars, or makeup over a period of a few months. Are these things really morally significant? Are they luxuries, frivolous items we could easily do without? Singer's point is that if we recognized that aid and assistance to relieve suffering is not morally optional, but an obligation, then our lives would look very different. He even suggests that we would only spend money on clothes to keep us warm, food to keep us healthy, shelters that provided adequate warmth and protection from the elements inger acknowledges that these demands are out of line with our ordinary judgements, but thinks it doesn't matter--what matters is what's right not what we ordinarily think (And others have thought similarly--Aquinas, Jesus? )He acknowledges that there may be all kinds of practical considerations that would lead to one strategy over another in deciding where to give our money, how to invest it, etc, but none of this would justify the lives we now live But the question arises--why should we think that our"luxuries "arent morally significant? If happiness is morally significant, and they bring us happiness, why aren't they morally significant? What if we'd be really unhappy if we couldn 't be fashionable, have dessert after meals, live in a comfortable house? What marks the line between the morally significant and the morally insignificant? Singer seems to think that the only thing that matters morally is suffering and relief from it-- as long as you've reached the baseline for a reasonable life, anything more is morally irrelevant. But this is implausible-- (and note--strongly anti-Utilitarian); a life for everyone at the baseline might be a pretty gloomy existence Is that what we should be aiming for? Singer could respond--look at the alternative: some people suffer and die when they could be helped while others luxuriate in their riches? Is this a morally acceptable situation? For further information about world hunger, here are some websites to look at THeHungerSite:http://www.thehungersite.com AmericasSecondHarvest:http://www.secondharvest.org MercyCorpshttp://www.mercycorps.or WorldHungerProgram:http://www.brown.edu/departments/worldHungerProgram/ FoodFirst:http://www.foodfirst.org/ HungerNotes(worldHungerEducationService):http://www.worldhunger.org ThehungerProjecthttp://www.thp.org Unicefhttp://www.uniceforg InternationalRescueCommitteehttp://www.theirc.org Oxfamhttp://www.oxfam.org/ Care:http://www.care.org TheGreaterBostonFoodBank:http://www.gbfb.org/(massachuseTts) ProjectBread:http://www.proiectbread.org/(massachuseTts) Hunger in America 2001 Eastern massachusetts results Overviewis not strictly required--its a nice thing to do, but one's basic moral obligations don't require it. What (3*) suggests is that many of the things we do with our money, time, and energy, are morally insignificant, and this poses a serious moral problem; as the TV ads have been pointing out for decades--only $17/month will provide a child with food, clothing, and education. It isn't hard to spend that much on cappuccino, or on candy bars, or makeup over a period of a few months. Are these things really morally significant? Are they luxuries, frivolous items we could easily do without? Singer's point is that if we recognized that aid and assistance to relieve suffering is not morally optional, but an obligation, then our lives would look very different. He even suggests that we would only spend money on clothes to keep us warm, food to keep us healthy, shelters that provided adequate warmth and protection from the elements... Singer acknowledges that these demands are out of line with our ordinary judgements, but thinks it doesn't matter--what matters is what's right not what we ordinarily think. (And others have thought similarly--Aquinas, Jesus?) He acknowledges that there may be all kinds of practical considerations that would lead to one strategy over another in deciding where to give our money, how to invest it, etc., but none of this would justify the lives we now live. But the question arises--why should we think that our "luxuries" aren't morally significant? If happiness is morally significant, and they bring us happiness, why aren't they morally significant? What if we'd be really unhappy if we couldn't be fashionable, have dessert after meals, live in a comfortable house? What marks the line between the morally significant and the morally insignificant? Singer seems to think that the only thing that matters morally is suffering and relief from it-­ as long as you've reached the baseline for a reasonable life, anything more is morally irrelevant. But this is implausible-­ (and note--strongly anti-Utilitarian); a life for everyone at the baseline might be a pretty gloomy existence. Is that what we should be aiming for? Singer could respond--look at the alternative: some people suffer and die when they could be helped, while others luxuriate in their riches? Is this a morally acceptable situation? For further information about world hunger, here are some websites to look at: The Hunger Site: http://www.thehungersite.com America's Second Harvest: http://www.secondharvest.org/ Mercy Corps: http://www.mercycorps.org/ World Hunger Program: http://www.brown.edu/Departments/World_Hunger_Program/ Food First: http://www.foodfirst.org/ Hunger Notes (World Hunger Education Service): http://www.worldhunger.org/ The Hunger Project: http://www.thp.org/ Unicef: http://www.unicef.org International Rescue Committee: http://www.theirc.org/ Oxfam: http://www.oxfam.org/ CARE: http://www.care.org/ The Greater Boston Food Bank: http://www.gbfb.org/ (Massachusetts) Project Bread: http://www.projectbread.org/ (Massachusetts) Hunger in America 2001 Eastern Massachusetts Results Overview