0


全球贫困:我们的义务有多高?

Global Poverty: How Demanding Are Our Obligations?
课程网址: http://videolectures.net/mitworld_singer_poverty/  
主讲教师: Peter Singer
开课单位: 普林斯顿大学
开课时间: 2012-08-07
课程语种: 英语
中文简介:
彼得·辛格向听众介绍了他最具挑衅性的哲学论点之一--即富裕的个人必须承认他们在道德上有义务减轻穷人不必要的死亡和痛苦。他那曲折的推理始于一个旁观者遇到一个孩子溺水在池塘里, 周围没有其他人的情况。旁观者是应该让孩子溺水, 还是必须留下救孩子?大多数人凭直觉认识到有责任拯救孩子。辛格从类比中认为, "溺水儿童的情况与富裕儿童死于可避免的贫困相关原因的情况在道德上没有关联"。各种方式, 并回应多年来对其部署的反论点。对在肉体中遇到的孩子, 是否有比在遥远的地方面对不露面的孩子更强烈的道德义务?有心理证据表明, 当人们能够将援助与面部相匹配时, 他们往往会捐出更多的钱, 但我们 "对需要帮助的个人有进化的反应", 并不能证明这是规范的道德理论"歌手说。虽然我们确实重视独特的责任, 比如父母对孩子的责任, 但我们不应该让这限制我们的行动。歌手颁布了这样的观点: "如果我们 (相对富裕的个人) 能够在不牺牲任何具有同等道德意义的东西的情况下预防一些糟糕的事情, 我们就应该这样做". 辛格回应那些声称个人不需要做任何超过他们应得份额的批评者, 以及那些试图限制人们合理欠他人的事情的人。歌手将追求个人目标和保护增强生命的商品的权利的论点贴上 "所有方法来试图找到一个原则, 与道德不应该要求过高, 让我们继续生活下去的直觉相一致"他承认, 有人说我宣扬的是一种要求很高的伦理, 这将使生活变得悲惨. "他引用了一些其他的公共标准, 比如将收入的10% 加起来。歌手本人现在的收入接近他的收入。只要稍加思考, 人们可能会发现, 改善别人的处境是一个令人满意的替代品, 而不是羽化自己的巢穴。辛格总结道: "过有道德的生活是让生活变得更好的。
课程简介: Peter Singer walks listeners through one of his most provocative philosophical arguments -- that affluent individuals must acknowledge their moral obligation to relieve the unnecessary death and suffering of the poor. His sinuous reasoning starts with the simple case of a bystander coming upon a child drowning in a pond with no one else around. Should the bystander leave the child to drown, or must he stay and save the child? Most people intuitively recognize a duty to rescue the child. Singer argues from analogy that there is “no morally relevant difference between the drowning child situation and the situation of the affluent with regard to children dying of avoidable poverty related causes.” Singer plays this scenario out in a variety of ways, and responds to counter-arguments that have been deployed against it over the years. Is there a stronger moral obligation to a child encountered in the flesh than to a faceless child in a distant place? There’s psychological evidence that people tend to donate more money when they can match their aid to a face, but the fact that we have “an evolved response to an individual in need” doesn’t justify this as normative moral theory, says Singer. And while it is true that we give weight to unique responsibility, such as that of a parent to a child, we should not allow this to limit our actions. Singer promulgates the idea that “if we (relatively affluent individuals) can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.” Since absolute poverty is bad, we ought to act against such poverty. Singer responds to critics who claim that individuals need do no more than their fair share, and to those who try to restrict what people reasonably owe others. Singer labels arguments laying out the right to pursue individual goals and protect life-enhancing goods as “all ways of trying to find a principle that squares with the intuition that morality shouldn’t be too demanding and allow us to continue to live a comfortable life.” He admits that “some say I’m preaching a demanding ethic that will make life miserable.” He cites some alternative public standards, such as tithing 10% of income. Singer himself now gives close to 1/3rd of what he earns. With a little reflection, people might find that improving the situation of others constitutes a satisfying alternative to feathering their own nests. Singer concludes, “Living the ethical life is what is going to make life better.”
关 键 词: 道德理论; 全球贫困; 道德义务
课程来源: 视频讲座网
最后编审: 2020-06-04:毛岱琦(课程编辑志愿者)
阅读次数: 52