Exam 23: A Reply to Singer Travis Timmerman

Timmerman argues that his Drowning Children case involving Unlucky Lisa proves that everyone must decide for themselves how seriously to take the demands of morality, and that this is reasonable.

Timmerman would most likely agree that

Timmerman's main objection to Singer's Drowning Child case is that it is utilitarian in spirit, whereas Timmerman defends Kantian moral theory.

Timmerman notes that Singer purports to demonstrate that the ethical commitments his typical readers already accept are

Timmerman challenges the inference from the intuition that we are obligated to rescue the child in Drowning Child to the truth of Singer's central claim-"If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so."

Timmerman resists Singer's key claim because he

If Timmerman's argument is sound, then most people in affluent countries will not have to substantially change their behavior.

Suppose you are in Lisa's situation. How many lives would you save? When you stop, what justification would you give? What would you say to the parent of the child who drowns right after you stop helping?

Timmerman and Singer both employ thought experiments in their arguments.

According to Timmerman, Singer provides a valid argument that consists of premises that he takes his typical readers to already accept.

Timmerman claims that one is morally obligated to spend one's entire life making repeated $200 sacrifices to prevent children from drowning.

Timmerman argues that his Drowning Children case

According to Timmerman, all people in an affluent nation, so long as they have some expendable income, will always be in a position to save the lives of people living in extreme poverty.

Timmerman claims Singer's Drowning Child case is deceptive because the implicit assumption is that

Timmerman would agree with Singer that suffering is bad.

Timmerman challenges Singer's argument. However, they nonetheless share some beliefs in common. On what do they agree? How different is Timmerman's conclusion, in terms of practical changes you would have to make to your lifestyle, from Singer's?

If Lisa takes a break from saving children to go to the theater, does her life become more (or less) worthwhile? Defend your answer.

Timmerman claims that his thought experiment

Timmerman characterizes the relationship between Singer's Drowning Child case and the actual circumstances of affluent people as

Timmerman denies that it's intuitive that one should save the child in Singer's Drowning Child.