Singer is a utilitarian so his primary concern is the alleviation of the suffering of individuals. You never even mentioned this. He is concerned about poverty because it entails suffering, which is at the heart of the matter.
What is interesting about both critiques of Singer is that they don't amount to contrary positions.
Marx's critique amounts to saying "you're right, but for the wrong reason, so therefore you're wrong." This critique says Singer is "ONLY" treating the symptom! Yet if you could actually apply the remedy and the symptom be gone, why look any further. After all, Singer's claims are gerneralizable, so both classes can apply them.
As for Kant, same answer: if the poverty is gone, problem solved
Marx was right. However, Singer's solution would work. Also, if the majority of people just in the United States all gave a little bit of money we would only have to give a very very small amount. If we could somehow get his solution to work, we could keep a "somewhat" healthy capitalist world without the need for communism.
If you cannot treat a cold but can offer a tissue, should you?
Yes - Logically you are obliged to.
If while trying to treat a cold you are able to offer a tissue, should you?
Yes - Logically you are obliged to.
It only becomes unethical to offer a tissue if in doing so treatment is prevented. Thus unless it is proven that a) class divide affects poverty, and that b) aid donation increases this effect then we should continue to offering tissues.
Singer is a utilitarian so his primary concern is the alleviation of the suffering of individuals. You never even mentioned this. He is concerned about poverty because it entails suffering, which is at the heart of the matter.
SinfulMessiah 1 year ago
What is interesting about both critiques of Singer is that they don't amount to contrary positions.
Marx's critique amounts to saying "you're right, but for the wrong reason, so therefore you're wrong." This critique says Singer is "ONLY" treating the symptom! Yet if you could actually apply the remedy and the symptom be gone, why look any further. After all, Singer's claims are gerneralizable, so both classes can apply them.
As for Kant, same answer: if the poverty is gone, problem solved
homerthompsonman 1 year ago
Thank you!
Marx was right. However, Singer's solution would work. Also, if the majority of people just in the United States all gave a little bit of money we would only have to give a very very small amount. If we could somehow get his solution to work, we could keep a "somewhat" healthy capitalist world without the need for communism.
alifeofreason 1 year ago
On you analogy of treating a cold:
If you cannot treat a cold but can offer a tissue, should you?
Yes - Logically you are obliged to.
If while trying to treat a cold you are able to offer a tissue, should you?
Yes - Logically you are obliged to.
It only becomes unethical to offer a tissue if in doing so treatment is prevented. Thus unless it is proven that a) class divide affects poverty, and that b) aid donation increases this effect then we should continue to offering tissues.
en0tjh 1 year ago