Dominance Arguments and Singer's Pond

In chapter 12 of The Limits of Kindness, Caspar Hare offers an interesting "dominance"-based argument that you cannot consistently (i) prefer to save the drowning child in Singer's pond, and yet
Philosophy News image
In chapter 12 of The Limits of Kindness, Caspar Hare offers an interesting "dominance"-based argument that you cannot consistently (i) prefer to save the drowning child in Singer's pond, and yet (ii) prefer not to save a distant child via donating to an effective charity.Hare's set-up is as follows:When you are considering whether to aid a needyIn chapter 12 of The Limits of Kindness, Caspar Hare offers an interesting "dominance"-based argument that you cannot consistently (i) prefer to save the drowning child in Singer's pond, and yet (ii) prefer not to save a distant child via donating to an effective charity.Hare's set-up is as follows:When you are considering whether to aid a needy. . .

Continue reading . . .

News source: Philosophy, et cetera

blog comments powered by Disqus