Some Boring (but Important) Technical Points about Arguments:

Definition of an argument: a set of statements of which it is claimed that one of those statements (the conclusion) is supported by the others (the premises).

E.g., Sydney is in Cape Breton
Cape Breton is in Nova Scotia
Therefore Sydney is in Nova Scotia.

When we're analyzing an argument, we're going to adopt the practice of labeling the premises of an argument as P1, P2, ... and the conclusion as C.  Hence, the boring argument above becomes.

P1: Sydney is in Cape Breton
P2:  Cape Breton is in Nova Scotia
C: Sydney is in Nova Scotia.

Two Things to Look for in an Argument

1. True Premises
2. Logical Strength

Logical Strength - An argument is logically strong if the premises of the argument support its conclusion (i.e., if the conclusion is likely to be true if the premises are true).

2 Kinds of Logical Strength:

(i) Deductive Validity - an argument is deductively valid if (and only if) it is impossible to have all the premises of the argument be true while, at the same time, the conclusion is false. E.g.,

P1: Jefferson was President of the U.S.A.
P2: All of the Presidents of the USA have been men.
C:  Jefferson was a man.

(ii) Inductive Strength - an argument is inductively strong if (and only if) whenever all the argument's premises are true, the conclusion is probably true. E.g.,

P1:  Trudeau was Prime Minister of Canada.
P2:  All but one of the Prime Ministers of Canada have been men.
C:  Trudeau was a man.

Singer's Argument:

Strong Version:

P1:  Death due to lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
P2:  (Strong Version)  "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it." (109)
P3:  It is in our power to prevent a significant amount of death due to lack of food, shelter and medical care simply by giving up all luxuries.
P4:  Our enjoyment of luxuries is not of comparable moral importance to the lives we could save if gave those luxuries up.
C:  We ought, morally, to give up all luxuries and donate the money/resources that are freed up to charity.

Weak Version:

P1:  Death due to lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
P2:  (Weak Version)  "if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally to do it."  (109)
P3:  It is in our power to prevent a significant amount of death due to lack of food, shelter and medical care simply by giving up some luxuries that we enjoy.
P4:  Ensuring that our present level of luxury does not decrease at all is not a morally significant thing.
C:  We ought, morally, to give up some of the luxuries we presently enjoy and donate the money/resources that are freed up to charity.

Either way, charity turns out to be morally obligatory.

"...we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm... it is wrong not to do so..." (172)

**************************************

A Different Version of Singer's Argument (The Weak Version)

Consider the following principle and 2 cases:

The Consistency Principle: ‘if you are obligated to act one way in some particular situation, call it situation A and you are not obligated to act in that same way in some other situation, call it situation B, there must be some morally significant difference between the two situations.'

The Shallow Pond:  On your way to give a lecture, you notice a child drowning in a shallow pond.  You can save the child, but if you do you will either have to cancel your lecture or give it in wet clothes. You decide to let the child drown.

The Envelope:  You receive a letter from a reputable charity telling you that, if you send a donation of $50, 5 children will be saved who would otherwise die.  You decide you don't want to and toss the envelope in the trash.

If this claim is correct, we can build the following argument out of the above.

P1:  The consistency principle is true.
P2:  You acted wrongly in The Shallow Pond case.  (Assume for the moment that the two cases actually happened.)
P3:  Morally speaking, the Shallow Pond and the Envelope are identical.
C:  You acted wrongly in the Envelope case.

In other words, 'charity' is mandatory here.

The Nasty Part of the Argument:  The claim made by the charity in the Envelope is true.  A donation of $50 to UNICEF can save the lives of a number of children who would otherwise die.  You can donate to UNICEF by calling (416) 482-4444 or writing to them at 443 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto, ON M4S 2L8.

Note:  If this argument is convincing, it seems to have much the same implications as the weak version of Singer's argument.  After all, by giving up some of the luxuries we presently enjoy (e.g., coffee, beer, CDs, nice clothes), we could save plenty of lives at a relatively minor cost to ourselves.  Now, while at some point, you might have done enough giving to get you off the hook, it seems that you'd have to give an awful lot in order to have done enough.

 Clearly, the claim that there are no morally significant differences between the two cases needs defending.  Is it correct?

A Prima Facie Case That It Is Correct:  In both cases, you are faced with a situation in which you can save at least one child's life at a relatively minor cost to yourself.  In neither case does it seem to matter whether you know the child or not.  If you're obligated to save the child's life in one case, there seems to be no justification for not saving the child's (or children's) life in the other case.

************************************************

Groupwork Assignment:  How would Narveson respond to the arguments we've considered so far?  (If you can't answer this, try to construct a plausible objection to one of the arguments.)

************************************************

Some Relevant Passages from Narveson:

Libertarianism:  "let us all agree to respect each other's pursuits.  We'll agree to let each person live as that person sees fit, with only our bumpings into each other being subject to public control." (182)

"if someone is starving, we may pity him or we may be indifferent, but the question so far as our obligations are concerned is only this:  how did he get that way?  If it was not the result of my previous activities, then I have no obligation to him, and may help him out or not, as I choose." (182)

Denying Impartiality:  "people do not 'count equally' for most of us." (184)