Intro
In this episode of Philosophy Bites, Theron Pummer discusses the concept of rescue and the moral obligations that come with it. He explores the idea of saving more lives, the conflicts between requiring reasons, and the importance of personal cost and autonomy in decision-making. Pummer also delves into the relevance of thought experiments and the real-world implications of helping others. Join us as we explore the rules of rescue and the complexities of moral obligations.
Main Takeaways
The Concept of Rescue and Moral Obligations
- The concept of rescue refers to preventing individuals from suffering significant harms, including nearby emergency rescues and cases of distant or systematic harm prevention.
- If one chooses to attempt a rescue, there is a moral obligation to do so in the best possible way to save more lives.
- This obligation to save more lives holds even when there is no obligation to save anyone.
- Looking at rescue cases supports the idea that we are required to incur significant costs over the course of our lives to prevent harm to others and to do so effectively.
- The existence of these requirements doesn’t imply that we’re required, all things considered, to spend our entire lives helping.
Permissions and Cost Effectiveness
- There are permissions not to help, grounded in personal cost and autonomy.
- It is wrong to help less cost effectively rather than more cost effectively.
- Obligation to save more lives rather than fewer lives.
- Maintaining intuitive claim about saving the greater number when the size of the claims is roughly equal.
- It is wrong to save one life rather than two lives if you could only go in one direction.
Permissible Inaction and Saving Lives
- There are cases where it is permissible to do nothing, even if it means not saving any lives.
- In situations where there is a choice between saving one life or multiple lives, there is a stronger reason to save the greater number of lives.
- If there is no difference in cost between saving one life or multiple lives, it would be wrong to save the one life without a sufficiently strong permission to do so.
- If one is willing to incur a cost, there is a conditional obligation to save the greater number of lives.
Moral Factors and Thought Experiments
- Requiring reasons serve to make an act required, but there can be conflicts between requiring reasons.
- Personal cost to the agent is a source of permitting reasons.
- Departing from standard consequentialism, endorsing permissions or permitting reasons.
- Constraints exist where it’s impermissible to do what’s impartially best.
- Thought experiment: Singer’s drowning child case vs. giving to charity, exploring the relevance of frequency in opportunities to help people in extreme poverty.
Lifetime Requirement to Help Others
- In a case where you could press a green button every minute for the rest of your life to save another stranger, would you be required to stay on the button?
- The cost of sacrificing a life is not enough to make it permissible not to save someone’s life.
- A lifetime cost of helping others can amplify your permitting reasons at a given time not to help.
- Thought experiments are valuable to test the relevance of certain moral factors that are said to be relevant.
- In the real world, to live permissibly, we need to take seriously the idea that we have something like a lifetime requirement to help others.
Effective Charitable Giving
- Giving 10% of lifetime resources to helping prevent serious harm to others would constitute a relatively small cost to many people living in affluent countries.
- Effectiveness is an important consideration when deciding where to donate money.
- Personal connections to a cause can be a factor in deciding where to donate, but they may not always be strong enough to justify less effective donations.
- Consistent giving to effective charities over a long period of time may provide leeway to give less effectively in certain cases.
- Autonomy is important, but giving whimsically to less effective charities without a strong personal connection is not justifiable.
Giving What We Can
- Giving What We Can is a group that encourages effective charitable giving.
- The group provides cost-effectiveness figures and personal stories to inspire effective giving.
- Toby Ord, a member of Giving What We Can, pledged to give a significant portion of his lifetime income to effective charities.
- Giving whimsically to less effective charities without a strong personal connection is not justifiable.
- The speaker, Pema, strives to give effectively and does not normally give to ineffective charities due to limited funds.
Summary
Rescue and Moral Obligations
The concept of rescue entails preventing significant harms, and there is a moral obligation to save lives in the best possible way. This obligation extends even when there is no initial obligation to save anyone. Examining rescue cases highlights the requirement to incur significant costs to effectively prevent harm to others, without necessitating a lifetime commitment to helping.
Permissions, Cost Effectiveness, and Saving Lives
While there are permissions not to help, it is morally wrong to choose less cost-effective options over more cost-effective ones. The obligation to save more lives takes precedence, even when the claims for help are roughly equal. In situations where a choice must be made between saving one life or multiple lives, there is a stronger reason to save the greater number of lives.
Permissible Inaction and Moral Factors
There are cases where it is permissible to do nothing, even if it means not saving any lives. Requiring reasons can lead to conflicts between requiring reasons. Personal cost to the agent serves as a source of permitting reasons. Departing from standard consequentialism, permissions or permitting reasons are endorsed. Constraints exist where it is impermissible to do what is impartially best.
Lifetime Requirement to Help Others
Thought experiments, such as Singer’s drowning child case, explore the relevance of moral factors and frequency in opportunities to help those in extreme poverty. Sacrificing a life is not enough to make it permissible to not save someone’s life. A lifetime cost of helping others amplifies permitting reasons not to help at a given time. To live permissibly, we must consider the idea of a lifetime requirement to help others.
Effective Charitable Giving and Giving What We Can
Giving 10% of lifetime resources to prevent serious harm to others is a relatively small cost for many people in affluent countries. Effectiveness is crucial when deciding where to donate money. While personal connections to a cause can be a factor, they may not always justify less effective donations. Consistently giving to effective charities over time allows some leeway for less effective giving in certain cases. Giving What We Can is a group that promotes effective charitable giving through cost-effectiveness figures and personal stories.
Conclusion
The rules of rescue and moral obligations guide our decisions when it comes to saving lives and preventing harm. While there are permissions not to help, the obligation to save more lives and prioritize cost-effectiveness remains strong. Thought experiments and real-world considerations highlight the importance of a lifetime commitment to helping others and making a significant impact through effective charitable giving. By understanding these concepts, we can navigate the complexities of moral decision-making and contribute to a better world.
