Peter Singer and Altruism 伦理学小品(3)

I partially agree with Singer's position that it is in our power to prevent certain bad things from happening. However, the moderate principle, which suggests we only need to distribute things that are morally significant for us, could be more persuasive (Singer, 1972). Singer starts with the criticism for traditional moral requirements of ordinary people. Specifically, Singer argues that the distinction between duty and charity is doubtable (Singer, 1972). Consider this example, when celebrities give money to charity, they are being recognized as generous. At the same time, they might be prodigals who spend millions of dollars on luxury cars. it is obvious that these celebrities value their luxury cars more than millions of people's lives. In this case, I might argue that this problem is raised by consumer culture, which had embedded the legitimation of luxury. Thus, our inherent view of value has been distorted. So, by appealing to the moderate principle, I claim that we should redraw the line between duty and charity in order to give people correct moral guidance as to what is morally significant (Singer, 1972). Comparing the moderate version of the principle to Singer's first principle, I argue that revising and letting people gradually accept new moral code is something natural and legitimate. In contrast, Given Singer's first principle, ordinary people might consider it is too sudden and opposing to their self-interested incentive, and thus, they will turn their head away from this principle. Given this unwanted consequence, I claim that we should accept the moderate version of Singer's principle.