 We talked about assumptions or the end of the assumptions in the last class and talked about proximity that well how in spatial and relational terms that the event becomes immaterial. The other aspect we need to talk about a little bit which said that well the actions of others assumed or actual similarly placed or not to make a difference to one's actions. So, what it simply saying that well how others react to a situation how others react to a moral requirement will influence or determines how one agents reaction to it. Now, this is crucial or this is the basis of the next or the same claim that he makes that well numbers lessen obligation. So, now for a famine in Bangladesh there are numerous countries that can pitch in to make a difference. So, because the moral responsibility is perhaps divided into the number of agents and countries. So, it lessens the obligations on an individual country or an individual citizen and the question comes forth that well why should I give more than anyone else in my situation. As in the described situation there are large number of agents who could act to make a difference, but this possibility reduces the moral or this possibility reduces the moral on us on each agent. So, numbers lessen obligation now what are we thinking about this that we started talking about it that well of and this example in the article that is given that well drowning child. Now, if you are the only one walking across the drowning child perhaps you are obliged or to morally required to go and rescue the child, but if there are many people around that lessens your obligation. Now, Singer's claim is that well first he says that if everyone in my situation makes a contribution of some currency units the crisis is solved. So, I should contribute this much the premises in the form of a hypothesis whereas the conclusion is given as a factual status. So, clearly Singer is not in favor of the theory that numbers lessen obligation, but it is a matter of common practice that well numbers do lessen obligation. Where responsibility is pinned down on an individual or at in a limited agency then the obligation is stronger, but when it is put out for. So, when we have a random call for volunteers all across an organization the the moral obligation for anyone to come up is much lesser. Whereas, if we have a pin pointed call for volunteers from a particular section of the organization perhaps the reaction is much stronger. This is the common. So, Singer is in a way doing what philosophers in the conventional sense are supposed to do revise the current standards. So, the current practices and standards are that well numbers do lessen obligation and Singer is of the opinion that no numbers do not lessen and should not need not lessen obligation. So, if and the fallacy that he points out is that well the premises in the form of a hypothesis whereas the conclusion is gives a factual claim. So, the premises that well if there are 20 people to help out this or there are 100 nations to help out Bangladesh and each one contributes say a fixed amount of resources it should be done. And therefore, as any one of those 100 nations we are obliged to pay only that much, but then well what he points out as that the premise is all in the form of a hypothesis that if everyone contributes. Therefore, I should contribute this much so that is the fallacy he points out. The utilitarian reading is that if everyone does what he ought to do the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than we ought to do or if only some do all that they ought to do excess sacrifice would be a waste unnecessary suffering caused including deficiency caused at the donor's end. So, one common claim has been that well if each one of us is such a passionate fanatic contributor or takes this moral responsibility so seriously it would perhaps lead to a generation of excessive resources for the affected. And that would again slow down that would cause in the utilitarian moral calculus it would cause a deficiency in the donor itself. So, if everybody is passionate enough now the way the world works what a single points out is that well there are very few people or few agencies which are so passionate and it is rarely that resources are generated exceeding the requirements. But then we have some of examples even in the world today where we find that well a properly known calamity has many times attracted much more resources than what is required for its resolution. There have been cases like this and then there leads to be an accumulation of excess resources which comes at the cost of excessive sacrifice at the end of the donor's and almost a distribution problem or at the end of the point of the calamity. So, what the critic of Singer addresses his own critic saying that well the claim is that the result of everyone doing what he really ought to do cannot be worse than the result of everyone doing less than what he ought to do. Although the result of everyone doing what he reasonably believes he ought to could be. So, simplistically simply put that well if we all do go by our moral conviction and do much more then it will bring about in the utilitarian calculus a lot of suffering or deficiency at the donor end and that would be unnecessary because you will find the resources required at the end of the catastrophe or calamity far less than what is being generated. So, what do you guys think of this? This is when this critic happens that well if I if everybody starts doing or living up to their moral duty then it turns out that more resources are generated and it is almost like and at the cost of the donor's it is almost like a he is trying to bring about however trivial it sounds almost a logical problem with having or if everybody succumbs to the call for passionate donation that Singer is talking about. He himself provides and he says that it is not that everyone acts simultaneously. Yes. So, different people donate at different point and as time goes on the amount the calculations will show that the amount that is required is changing and so at any point when a person is donating they would they would attend to what is required and respond accordingly. So, in reality it does not work out like that that everyone donates a fixed. Excels yes yes and that if everyone donates very fanatically and to the most of their possibility and the accumulation of excessive resources. So, it is almost like when you call for a group of volunteers or call for a donation you really know that intuitively know that perhaps your collection will not be as much as you expect or the call will not or will rarely materialize into a 100 percent call for volunteers or contribution that it will always be less than what is expected. So, if everyone goes overboard the logical problem is that well we accumulate much more and which is unnecessary required. Yes. Everyone does what they really want to do. Yes yes. But it is a problem that can have practical solutions the receiving agency can stop receiving it has received the amount all the amount is needed. It can say stop donating now. Yes that we have had enough and we require no more. I would also think that it is a kind of a in principle trivial logical objection raise that well we that everybody going or overboard. Now good that you made the correction between overboard and doing one's duty because that brings us to what we are going to talk next. Is this particular difference between yes. Yes. It is like that why I should give more than anyone else in my situation. I think you are talking about the very psychological standpoint. It happens like as a human being they are thinking that why I should give more than others. It is our psychological attitude and if you apply the third point that everyone in my situation makes a contribution of some currency and the crisis is solved. So, I should contribute some currency. So, here he is talking about the majority. He is not saying that everyone that means like partially in the future. He is talking about the majority and if the majority will give something then automatically he is create a balance between the society of poor group as well as the rich group. And he is saying that if maybe it is a small currency a small amount still it creates a huge amount in the last moment. Then we can contribute this amount to the like that society which are facing the family problem. So, I think he is trying to collaborate or he is trying to join relationship between the poor as well as rich group. And here he is not indicating that why I should. It is the psychological standpoint and the third one I think he is trying that even if a small amount then you have to care. That does not mean that a small amount it will not create something else. But it can also help to dedicate suffering from our society. Yes, perhaps let me put an analogy for the question that he is putting forth. Suppose we are a class of three and one of us falls six and we are all far away from home and we require medical attendance. Now, there are 24 hours in a day and if one of us falls six there are two people who can render their service and or assistance. And so each one or two or each one does 12 hours. So, singers claim is that well if there are two people who are going to help or assist the patient and there are 24 hours in a day. So, I should do my 12 hours and with that 12 hours I should walk away. So, this question that if everyone in my situation makes a contribution of fixed unit. So, then the crisis is solved. So, in principle if each one of the two people who are well stand assistance for 12 hours each then a day is covered. So, assuming that that is an assumption. So, when he points out in the fourth bullet that well the premise is in the form of a hypothesis. So, what is the premise here that well if two attendants give 12 hours each a day of attendance is done. Therefore, what is the factual conclusion? Therefore, I should give 12 hours of or stand 12 hours of assistance. But would that be the case? Now that assumes that everyone else will donate that much. So, singers call is that well this is not a justifiable claim because it starts as a hypothesis that well surely if the second person does not turn up the first attendant perhaps would not walk away trying to think that well if both do 24 hours both do 12 hours each 24 hours is covered a day is covered. So, let me do my 12 hours and then that is the obligation of the other. But singers claim is that well what if we why should we excel or exceed in what is an average expectation from us. So, the fallacy here is that well we are assuming that everybody will contribute maybe the other person would not turn up. So, would you abandon the patient and go back home. Maybe he is talking about the concept of duty in one sense like as a human being we have some relation to other human being. So, we have to do our duty. So, yes his call is that the duty is should not be measured in terms of the other agents that well I will do as much as I can do. So, he is making a very fundamental claim that he is isolating the individual that there is a crisis and I am an agent. How others react to it should not influence my decision. So, it is almost a very neo western basis of human functioning that well I am an individual and how others react to a situation that does not affect me should not in turn affect me. So, if there is I if I am to do what I need to do or what is the most I can do then let me do that irrespective of what others do or what others are expected to do or what others can do. Then again it will be problematic for him also because he is coming under the utilitarian agent. For utility sometimes we have to sacrifice our own like goodness comfort. That is exactly what he is saying the why not sacrifice as much as possible because when I when the question is that if everyone in my situation makes this much contribution. So, everyone satisfies sacrifices a little bit of happiness to take care of the problem there. So, that is the one way of working that well if there is a famine in Bangladesh. So, I should if India has 100 crore citizens. So, each citizen gives 1 rupee and therefore, Bangladesh gets 100 crores which is assumed enough to satisfy the situation in Bangladesh. So, I should contribute 1 rupee. Maybe he is talking about the duty perspective that I have to give only 1 rupee. But when he is talking about donation or the charity I think it is like once private. Well, he does not regard it as a private interest. In fact, if we when we talk about duty and charity he is asking that you must give as much as you can give. But why you do duty fathers if you will apply the deductive method that everyone is doing something that it is like fix for me then I will give. Because both. You see because both claims the premise and the conclusion do not belong to the same category of statements. So, when whereas the premise is in hypothesis and the conclusion is a factual claim. So, when we suffer with if and then. So, when the premises itself is in hypothesis it is not the truth claim of the premise is not there. Because, in hypothesis is neither true nor false. So, basing on that how can one make a conclusion as true or false. So, where the premise. If the premises if it rains the floor will be wet. Now, if the antecedent is not satisfied if it does not rain. But can we say independently of that the floor will be rain the ground will be wet. We cannot say that the ground will be wet only if the antecedent condition is satisfied if it rains. So, only everyone involved in that situation makes that contribution. So, stronger rebuttal is that well the premises does not have a truth value. The premises has to have a truth value to connect to the conclusion. He is bringing about alleviation of suffering. So, the standard utilitarian is to bring about happiness of the majority which is also understood as alleviation suffering for the maximum people. So, utility is what resources. Say he talks about downright money that what happiness money can get you as an extra as a citizen of or as a comparatively prosperous and wealthier citizen why not spare that much of utility and pour it into the alleviation of suffering elsewhere. What kind of utility theories are you talking about? What you would perhaps like to look at it this way that he is expressing his views which can be classified into a theory. It is perhaps not that there is an abstract theory and he is trying to fit in the raw input data or the empirical data that he is receiving and putting it on to the situation and trying to get a solution right. So, it is not that he wants to be a utilitarian philosopher of this particular model and thereof he is finding this kind of solution. It is rather the other way around that he is trying to find the solution. It is the eternal relation between theory and practice. So, when I say that I am a Kantian what do I mean? Therefore, every problem that Kantian rules or is it that the way I think is similar to the way Kant has put forth his theories. Two things are totally different. When you are talking about the first one it is basically depends upon the Kant's exert what he means and when you are saying that I am following that means there is something Kantian principles with your principles. So, there is a difference and I think maybe he is talking about quantitative utilitarianism because he is giving emphasis on quality rather than I think. How is he emphasizing quality? He is also. Quantity. I am talking about quantity. How is he emphasizing quantity? Quantity of the like people, majority of the people. The major like huge amount of money is needed to get the suffering. But again what the problem between quantitative and qualitative utilitarians was faced was perhaps resolved in favor of that human happiness cannot have numbers attached to it. When we are talking about there is difference also. Again he creates a difference between qualitative and quantitative. Both is necessary and qualitative like reading a book is qualitative and like. Elevation of suffering? Oh sorry. He is trying to create that there is a higher hierarchy in the sense that there is a higher happiness and the lower happiness and in higher happiness he is talking about that reading or meditation like that and the lower that watching movie and other things which are basically based on the senses that is our sixth sense of that is the mind. So, I think he is basically emphasizes on the dual category of the. Who? Singers? Yes. Because basically he is not talking about the higher quality of. Right. In fact towards the end of it yes he makes a point that well alleviation of suffering or basic animal existence is definitely a part of the utility. So singer would not be saying that well the pleasure I get say if you want to spare a certain amount of your resources. I would have bought a book and read it and had that higher order pleasure from that instead of that let me put it into famine relief and therefore I derive I deprive myself of that pleasure of higher order pleasure as to say compared to the basal pressure requirements of survival that happen for famine relief. But here I think the distinction made is very clear that when he talks about when we will talk about what he requires calls as marginal utility and he particularly targets the consumeristic environment prevailing in his times and continuing till now in fact spreading quite a bit that well if one is agrees to spend more on say clothes or luxury that are not necessary instead of spending that resources on famine relief then one is doing something which is wrong and that is a very clear calculus that he is mentioning because it is the use of a utilitarian calculus is when it is in the same domain of say comfort of between two individuals say your book versus my book. So why should you spare your resources for me to buy a book or the other way round. But here it is a very clear indication that whereas your the luxury in a consumeristic society of a developed country versus basic survival in an underdeveloped world. So he does not even enter that well is that is there a debate in weighing these two he finds that as clearly resolved yes. Yes there is no requirement for a compare because the division is clear where if it were in the same domain say your comfort versus my luxury or one agents comfort versus another agents comfort is there where we require to perhaps have a quantitative which is quite outmoded except in the market based economic way of understanding the world order where we would try to because it becomes when we associate numbers with satisfaction it becomes very easy to compare the satisfaction index achieved. So but in this case I think we do not even have to enter that venture because they are at two diametrically opposite one is basic survival and the other is an optimal lifestyle or an enhanced lifestyle. But well he has nowhere implied a numerical equivalent of that how much would you rate say suffering as minus seven and consumeristic lifestyle as plus three. Yes but that will bring about the alleviation of suffering. In fact utilitarianism has always been critiqued as ignoring the minority. Well no not as much not not minority it is perhaps more on who is the well resourced from the ill resourced. So the people who are comfortably affluent and people who are at the brink of survival yes you had something alleviation of suffering is the lower order thing. So in the second list where we consider things that have to do with removal of suffering the more primal and fundamental the suffering is the higher up it will be on that list. So corresponding to higher order pleasures in this first list you would have higher order alleviation Well lower and higher order would not that way be as much as an hierarchy as in necessity. So when that we need food shelter and these things as essentials so when they say lower order is basic minimum. It would hold definitely much more value over what he calls higher order because after your lower order requirements are fulfilled then the question of higher order happiness comes around. So after you are well fed healthy and have a comfortable place to stay then comes your search for a higher order of happiness. He is talking about the net balance between two things. Yes net balance between for him this would not be an issue at all perhaps my understanding of singer is that he makes it very clear that it is only that in fact he stops his argument by saying that anybody who disagrees will not read further that is a very unambiguous claim that if you try to quantify suffering due to famine and death and disease versus lifestyle and enhanced lifestyle then I am not talking to you. So he takes that is almost axiomatic but let us come back here now he talks about this notion of duty and charity this is what one I would see a deeper almost a metaethical claim that singer does that we will talk about he is trying to revise the current moral standards. So what does he do he first questions it what that we have a traditional moral categorization and what is this categorization he targets the distinction between duty and charity we have certain things as understood as duty and certain as charity but he finds this distinction as untenable the charitable person is praised but the one who is not is not condemned conspicuous consumption along alongside penury does not raise eyebrows in fact here I would like you to reflect on the Indian experience with inequality that when we make huge donations or when any person makes a donation he is appreciated or is praised but when somebody does not who is capable of making a donation does not make a donation that does not raise eyebrows. So that is what is perturbing singer that and particularly if you look at it in the Indian experience post liberalization we have had a phenomenal level of affluence coming into the country which exists alongside with perhaps poverty levels of sub Saharan Africa with affluent levels of the Forbes 500 in the world. So this if singer looks at this situation in the Indian milieu today he would be angry at people that something is wrong with your moral standards because in land of poverty you cannot in such a penury alongside with such affluence says that there is something wrong with our moral categorization that well conspicuous consumption alongside with penury does not raise eyebrows so it does not so it is still considered that well if a very wealthy man makes 10% of his assets into charity as a very renowned or a great thing to happen but whereas the what singer would say is that because he does not make 50% or 70% how much he can spare comfortably that should raise eyebrows so it should actually be condemned that is making such a small contribution. Do you think that he is indicating only the Indian experience with the inequality? No that is my reading of it that is nowhere what... Why do you think that? It brings about because what singer at that time now remember this is 1971 and the world is not so well connected as it is today but even then singer has a problem that people in developed countries are spending huge amount of resources for the development of a supersonic jet versus not funding a famine affected country but in the Indian milieu today this contrast is even more clear because right in the same city same town if you would find an affluent colony surrounded by a group of shanties so that is what this is even if singer may although he does not excuse but he may say that well we have distance that proximity is making a psychological influence in the Indian experience that proximity is not excuse at all because right outside plush living colony you will find a bunch of shanties so in fact and physically so for the western world it is still available as through electronic means of communication but in the Indian milieu it is right out there you have to just step out and see so seeing that is saying that well anybody who is not donating significantly needs to be seen as a immoral person not just as a moral person who does not choose to do charity so that is the kind of so this whole notion of super erogatory acts that well super erogatory acts are the acts that very good if you do it but nothing wrong if you don't do it now what do you think of these kinds of facts that well say if somebody donates significantly then that's a very good thing that person is doing but if somebody does not it's not condemnable a singers claim is to bring back that well somebody who is not is to be seen as doing something wrong so this is what he is doing he's this pardon okay in the current moral scenario so when we say what is the moral categorization what is conventional so what is say I'll give you an example contextual example which will he's context 30 years back in in a classroom students were expected to stand up when the teacher entered you say say in an Indian classroom that was a moral tenet at that time the moral tenet today is that it is not required that when I talked about the Indian classroom right so the every society has its moral dictates which is at a time now think of some moral dictates which were earlier there or here and our prayers also or think of various curtsies and acts so right or even say asking yes asking for a glass of water to a stranger in an unknown household or unknown place so now you would be expected that well you better go to the nearest shop and buy your water so that is in fact if I may just have interrupt small there is yes anecdote a voluntary association in Haridwar once told me about this situation the questioning civilization that whom do you call a civilized person now when you find imagine you as a city dweller who's gone up to the mountains lost in the mountain and then you reach one place in a village and you ask them for little food to eat you have lost your way what will in probability what they would do they would do is not only feed you perhaps provide your bed to sleep and the next day they will try to put you on a bus back home now imagine the same person has come to your city and he's got lost and he's rung your bell if your security guard does not turn him away you would telling that well it is how dare you bother me about this thing so this is questioning the this is this is yes this is questioning that whom would you call a civilized person now the one who was up there in the hills helping you or one who is right here now so coming back that is what in in moral standards change over time and singers powerful claim is that what is being regarded today is as charity is really ought to be duty so if there is somebody who's fallen down on the road and if somebody goes to an onlooker or a passerby goes to help that person then it is seen that the person is benevolent is charitable but singers claim is that well that person is doing just what his duty is in fact the person who is not the passerby who is not assisting the one who's fallen on the road is actually doing something condemnable so is violating a duty so this notion of supererogatory acts that have come up that acts which if you do is good but if you do not do is not is okay let's think of some examples of it now if you we are because we are in a moral climate only the climate keeps on changing so now perceive as something which are regarded as supererogatory apart from of course significant charities or financial donation there you could bring in the question of the reliability of the information I would think of another example say blood donation India has a very high number of young people eligible to donate blood and yet India has a shortage of blood supply so this is a clear-cut case where somebody donates a blood he's made to feel special and he's made to he's given maybe a certificate from Red Cross or whatever whoever has organized the blood donation what singers claim is those person need not be given certificates they have done what their duty is those who are fit enough to donate blood and are not donating blood they should be looked down upon on the moral scale so donating blood is not a charity it is a duty so especially when there is requirement so likewise it's not a supererogatory act to donate blood if you would like to bring up any other example that strikes you as which is being really yes yes if they need help if they choose if they wish to seek assistance for say going past the road or anyway okay well what singer is doing in true philosophy spirit is holding a mirror to the world out there that well look at this these are your current standards and you would like to revise them so like art and literature and philosophy that is a part of humanities they are trying to reflect or hold a mirror to the world to the society out there and show them their own standards and perhaps influence a change what will happen now singer clearly has a direction he wants debunking these notion of supererogatory acts but again he tries to analyze that why did this notion of supererogatory acts come up so when he is claiming that well a call to redraw the distinction between duty and charity the current demarcation is not correct and needs to be revised well he is trying to first understand why this happens which is perhaps in the next slide but now he talks about the implications of redrawing this distinction so yes this is in a way also the justification why this distinction has been made so this distinction keeps the domain of duty limited but rigid expanding it would supposedly make all the tenets weaker the entrance or the entrance in the moral tenets from charity into duty would weaken the existing tenets in the duty domain so what is he saying he is basically saying that well if you increase now we have a certain domain of duty so we have a domain of a duty that when we in the current moral climate when we have disagreement to with someone we do not use physical force we try to go to a third party resolution now if we enhance this domain of duty into getting say donating as much as you can that every person has to donate a bottle of blood every 3 months then this domain of charity becomes so large that people would stop even doing the fundamental duty of confirming to the expectation of the notion of duty that one shall not use physical force when in disagreement with the other so that is one reason that he says that well enhancing the notion of duty will weaken what is already there what is already is there that we suppose we do not want to use physical force what is not there is we should denote it as much as we can so we move this second tenet that we must donate as much as we can into the notion of duty that weakens what is already there in the notion of duty because that duty is almost like a mental binding that this ought to be done so whether or not this moral thinking is a moral binary that it is either or not so it is like that well follow one rule in the book I as well as not follow any rule in the book so the second thing second almost like an extrapolation that singer tries to find out that will moral tonnets are shaped by the local societal needs from the localized context extraneous participation does not enhance localized needs and may instead be a drain on local stability simply put distinction between we are talking about charity and duty why is this distinction there he perhaps thinks of two explanations for it the second one is saying that well all our moral sense of duty has evolved there is a very dominant theory that our moral domain has evolved out of our local societal needs so if in a society for example water is a scarce resource so water is deified so that its wastage is seen almost as not just a wastage of resources but is seen as immoral so using that kind of an analogy singer tries to put in that well moral tenets are built by local societies and local societies do not require you to design these tenets for their own survival they do not expect that it would help the society neighboring yours so therefore it has been acts which render assistance to neighboring societies have been rendered as charity rather than duty whereas act which are essential for the survival of one's own society are in the relegated to the domain of duty so these are basically the implications and the explanations so as he rightly makes this terminological correction that these may be the explanation these may be the mistake there these may be the explanations of the built difference between duty and charity but does this provide a justification right what is the motivation of in fact no singer has nowhere gone into the motivation he has just worked on that this ought to be the motivation or the policy for donation so he is nowhere exploring in this article that what are can there be contributions or donations which are of maybe a more vested interest or maybe maligned intentions or malefied intentions so no he is not saying that he is actually yes he is challenging that that he is saying that well if we all ought to do as much as we can so he is like a good philosopher he is engaging he is inventing his own critique and answering these doubts so when he says that well some people try to make a claim that well why not donate my average of the donation so he is reply to this so he is floating his own critique and then attacking his critique so it is almost follows the platonic dialectic tradition that where it happened in the form of a play here it happens in prose that well what was the opponent say that the opponent would say that well duty and charity are different things but he is saying that well this needs to be revised it is just explanation how this division occurred so but this does not give a justification so he answers this that this duty and charity distinction has to be reconfigured and this reconfiguration is because and you can see perhaps smell out the strong Kantian perspective here when he talks about that the moral point of view requires us to look beyond our society now this is my word I have used for singer is trans-perspective he nowhere uses it but that is the gist of his moral ethos that well you have to transcend your own perspective and that is foundationally shared with Kantian ethics with deontological ethics or any impersonal ethics which regards you just as an individual amongst others in a collective so no it is definitely not metaphysically in any sense used over here it just means not beyond our society into another world but it is an epistemological claim that to look at different societies so not from the outlook that you have been used to so no here here it is just the various societies in this very world so in fact singer here it has very clearly steered away from any esoteric or metaphysical claims especially when he says when I paraphrase him as trans-perspective it is his impersonal claim that we are just a part of one society and there are many societies here so when singer answers this distinction between duty and charity the explanation that is traditionally come up the first point he puts forth is that the moral point of view requires us to look beyond our society trans-perspective so the very what is having one's perspective so having one's perspective is having one's takes a UC as a student or as a person you have a perspective that well say say about any ritual say that one should not eat non-vegetarian food now the another person has a perspective that one should eat non-vegetarian food so there is a difference in opinion why you are trying to understand from the other person's perspective why does the other person think the way one thinks apart from the fact when there is dissent or disagreement is common to human existence that wherever we are more than one person we disagree especially when we are multi-culturally embedded so why is that difference this trans-perspective or transcending one's perspective so I have my opinion on so many things but when somebody has a different opinion why does that somebody have a different opinion that is when I am trying to transcend my perspective and trying to understand from the other person's perspective that well why does that other person have different views than what I have no in fact I think you can even argue that the philosophers have argued that can we really transcend our perspective we can have a relative idea but I can never know how it feels to be you and you can never know it feels to be me that is one way of arguing that transcending one's perspective is only finite but yes you are going to add something please elaborate why do you think so there is no difference because when I am talking about the perspective definitely a relative is also complex like it follows also because within a society we need some coherence relation something will be like something will be the major constitution for the local society will be for them so we need some coherence relation between individuals and relative is when I am saying that I like not okay let me make this a little clearer that you can be a relativist holding and yet being trans-perspective so it is not necessary that trans-perspective means being an absolutist so no it's not about higher absolute it is just about a common truth let me give you an example say some societies find polyandry as a practice some societies find polygamy as a practice now and some societies have monogamy as a practice let us say there are three societies now to the relativist there is no absolute claim that the relative is cannot claim utter that well polyandry is wrong or polygamy is wrong or monogamy is right the relativist cannot make any absolute claim saying that well your society your when I say trans-perspective well it is not a it's a methodology it is not a classification so trans-perspective well is say I belong to a monogamous society I try to look into the history and the makeup of a polygamous society and try to see why where why did the society approve polygamy was there a shortage of one gender and therefore to continue the species that the race they sorted to polygamy or looking for justification that well why did my society find monogamy right so I am nowhere still making a judgment that well one that polygamy is wrong or monogamy is right so I am can still be relativist that each one has its own tenets but why did the tenets evolve so I have due to my lineage my upbringing my mode of interpretation is one I am trying to under shift into another mode of interpretation of another culture to find out why did they have that practice so it is not perhaps a hierarchical classification that well I can see why that practice in the other society is wrong so it is nowhere that the targeted western audience for which this article is written is anywhere superior to the famine suffering Bangladesh is it is just a claim that one ought to be trans perspective as the targeted audience of this article are affluent western citizens who are living in a society of comfort bordering on luxury so from their perspective it has to be is asking them calling them to transcend their perspective about life into what others perspective on life could be it is a simple thing why do you this urge to help a suffering being because the trans perspective answer is that because you see and perhaps you superimpose that kind of suffering on to yourself it will perhaps become clearer once we run through the details of it so what singers claim is that well what why should we be moral we should be moral because we are individuals as much as anybody else is so there that fundamental basic line or the lowest common factor which is shared with Rawls and Kant and all impersonal ethics that I am contrasted with a very personal ethics that I feel I am special so I should use my resources to make my life more exciting that is contrasted of a very personal ethics that well I am the center of my world impersonal ethics strips you of this specialness of being yourself so and you therefore transcend perspectives and see that not because it could happen to you so he's not appealing to the western audience that tomorrow famine could be struck in this affluent part of the world and therefore the Bangladesh he's would help us he's not even arguing for a quid pro quo measure that way he's just saying that well you have to transcend your perspective and see that well suffering is happening you can alleviate that suffering with a minimal effecting effect on your lifestyle so yes yes in fact the traditional conceptualization of an isolated decision-making individual unaffected by others as happens in the western tradition is clearly evidenced in singers claim because when one is an individual no you are not exceeding you are trying to understand the view of others or the understand the plight of others yes his claim is essentially yes not self-centered it is the individual center it is not because if you contrast oriental ethics or anthropomorphic ethics where human beings are a part of greater cosmic order in fact that is very often critiqued as the classic differentiation between eastern and western ethics that well western ethics is individual centric whereas eastern ethics is you see yourself as a part of the cosmic order is a singular and you are just playing a part in it so that is definitely not what singer is talking about singer is talking about very limited singular individual decision in fact it may help to mention that Rawls make makes two assumptions about his theory the second one being that individuals take decisions independent of others so what others make a choice does not affect what one does now in an ideal isolated individualistic society yeah the others decision-making or condition should not affect one so so the others happiness should not make you either happy or sad and the other sadness should not make you happy or sad so that is what the direction of a classic western society is whereas eastern societies are much more communitarian so they are linked up so when we have milieu of sorrow it is supposed to cause sorrow in us it is all decisions are for the group not for the individual but okay now going ahead he talks about yes that why why this for furthering this debate on duty and charity that a Situic and Ermson have argued that we need a basic moral code which is not too far beyond the capacities of the ordinary man for otherwise there will be a general breakdown of compliance with the moral code so where should we draw the line between conduct that is required and conduct that is good in although not required so as to get the best possible result now this is again I would see a read into this singers philosophical acumen getting into drawing the distinction between the way things are and the way things ought to be the classical distinction that is talked about from Hume's time fact versus values so the factual claim is that well these moral standards have this distinction between duty and charity has evolved from empirical practices but singers claim is that well they ought to be revised and that ought revision or that justification has to come from us it does not come from cannot be understood from the social cultural social cultural background in which these practices have emerged so a drawing a line between conduct that is good and though not required and conduct that is essential so as to get the best possible result in fact on a deeper level he leaves us with that question that if we redraw the lines that we have this conduct which is good or which is essential and that which is super erogatory essentially again going back to that question that super erogatory acts are only should be brought down to the domain of necessary or necessary moral acts so question raise which I see is how do prevalent moral standards affect the decision people take now here again I would see a crucial claim that singer makes is that the locus of change is within or without now here singer very strongly points out that the locus of change is from without also so the moral milieu that we are raised and born and function in effects us so today because the moral milieu around just claims that well blood donation is an super erogatory act it is an act for which you should be praised so we tend to have that same feeling and that is why we do not have people lining up to donate blood so the change from all change is definitely not within so singers claim is to make a revision in the moral climate that will make a call to revise moral standards that well donating blood if anybody does donate blood or if I can think of another example today perhaps if I am my understanding of the Indian scenario is accurate or fairly intuitive say casting once vote now in colleges it is a hip thing today to show off that you have cast your vote you show off your the mark for voting so what is supposedly should be a duty has become almost an achievement so it is taken as default that people do not vote and somebody who takes the pain to go and vote needs to get that recognition for doing something that voting has become a super erogatory act so yes he is singer does bring into light that well how what should be in the domain of duty has become in the domain of charity so at the whole on a large scale singer is making a call to revise moral standards that apart from the fact that making a phenomenal at the empirical level making a phenomenal donation to the famine struck people of Bangladesh is also making a call to revise moral standards so he talks that he counters this argument that could that critics make that well a massive increase in moral expectations unsettles and weakens the exist existent norms so if you are if you enhance the rule book then people who are following that small number of rules in the rule book will stop following all the rules if you enhance the rule book so pragmatism or wisdom has always of the people governing state of affairs has always held that well keep the rules thin and small so that we can expect people to follow them but if you enhance the rule book it raises the expectations to highs and high and whatever little rules that were being followed will also no more be followed so he also talks about this standard critique of utilitarian paradigm that there are too much of expectations but it is only so in the times of need not always because the standard critics criticism of utilitarian utilitarianism says that well you are constantly sacrificing the individual for the collective so for the greatest happiness or the greatest alleviation of suffering you are constantly making your life miserable well making once life miserable is only when there are catastrophes or calamities across the world community or whichever community you hold as the frame of reference so he also talks about a few details that were that are more interesting if you are in I would like to explore the applied ethical part of it well he appeals to religious justification because most of the religion have he gives the example of Christianity but perhaps most of the religions have always held accumulated property as theft and particularly in Semitic religions that all property is theft that it is when there is suffering elsewhere it is immoral to live a life of comfort or luxury so in various forms it has been decodified it has been codified in various religions so singer chooses the most accessible of the Christian philosophers Thomas Aquinas and talks about marginal utility which is a very dominant notion in economic thinking especially market based economic thinking that well how much you can sacrifice to get what to for say charitable causes or what according to singer now is erstwhile known as charitable causes what currently or rightly should be known as your duties that what how much you must sacrifice from your comfort for your duties it is something for us individuals to work out then he talks about preventing catastrophes that how do we that definitely the whole world should go on on just famine relief or from one calamity to another but actively donating or contributing in preventing such calamities happening because if you take a novice view of the world around it will seem strange as a as a new entrant to the world you will find that we have the technology to make medical care accessible but we rather prefer prefer to spend it on military spending we have technology to we have the power to have a very high basic standard of living but we would still rather prefer a booming economy and a dwindling economy so we are not connecting these two in fact he also brings into light because coming from a western philosopher it is not a very usual claim because this is contradicting market based functioning which most of the western societies follow that well we need to create demand to spare supply and that chain brings upon a lot of profit and driving the economy so yes this in at another level I would see that this brings forth the perhaps in principle conflict between market based economics and moral philosophy which still is talked about when we talk about justice and the role of governments that moral philosophy or ethics seems to contradict economic logic that market based economic logic or the market logic that is being presented is very often counter ethics so that there are are there moral limits of the markets as current philosopher Sandal puts it that where are the current limits of moral limits of the market and finally yes that's a clarion call for the role of academic philosophers that not to be contained in classrooms but try to make an effort to reach out and bring down philosophers from the self contained ivory towers into making a difference in the world out there at least attempting so in fact singer has himself lived a life of quite active social and political involvement so this is what basically singers putting out a very very passionate and claim from a philosopher to the world out there so that is it we can stop at that