Ch22 Exam Prep Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Test Bank

to accompany

Exploring Ethics, Sixth Edition

Cahn

Chapter 22

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Peter Singer

[NOTE: Questions marked with “*” also appear in the student self quizzes on Learning Link.]

Multiple Choice

1. What does Singer believe those who live in relatively affluent countries have a duty to sacrifice to protect people in poor countries from preventable evils?*

a. One-tenth of their incomes

b. As much as they can afford without radically altering their lifestyles

c. As much as they can afford without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth to what the poor are lacking

d. As much as it would take to eradicate the evils if everyone else in that economic situation gave an equal amount

2. Singer’s argument begins with the assumption that

a. all people are created equal.

b. we ought to do whatever maximizes happiness.

c. pleasure is good.

d. suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.

3. Singer describes the emergency in East Bengal as

a. unique only in its magnitude.

b. unique both in magnitude and in terms of the interests at stake.

c. in no way morally unique.

d. justifying a fundamental critique of utilitarian moral philosophy.

4. According to Singer, the fact that many other people are in a position to donate to famine relief makes*

a. both a psychological difference and a difference to our moral obligations.

b. a psychological difference but no difference to our moral obligations.

c. no psychological difference but a difference to our moral obligations.

d. neither a psychological difference nor a difference to our moral obligations.

5. What does Singer say in response to the objection that his position requires too drastic a revision of our current moral values?*

a. The implications of the view are not as radical as they initially seem.

b. However radical, the conclusion should stand until its premises are rejected or the argument is shown to be unsound.

c. Moral values must change with the times, and a time of such extreme global inequality as ours requires a dramatic response.

d. Our current moral values are rooted in indefensible religious doctrines and therefore ought to be drastically altered.

6. To the argument that geographic proximity to the needy makes one better suited and more obligated to respond, Singer replies that

a. whether this makes a difference to the duty to help depends on one’s personal wealth.

b. these reasons weaken, but do not affect the basic principle behind, the duty to help those far away.

c. modern communications and transportation technology have changed the situation.

d. None of the above

7. Some writers cited by Singer have feared that promoting radically demanding moral standards will*

a. lead to a general breakdown in morality.

b. lead people to sacrifice more than is good for them.

c. lead to widespread, paralyzing guilt.

d. undermine our tolerance of cultures with moral standards different from our own.

8. Singer claims that his argument upsets the traditional distinction between

a. duty and charity.

b. egoism and altruism.

c. rights and privileges.

d. positive and negative rights.

9. What does Singer think about the view that overpopulation will lead to mass starvation in the future?*

a. There is no good evidence to support it.

b. It mitigates our obligation to do what we can to prevent famine now.

c. If we accept it, our duty to prevent famine should lead us to support organizations working for population control.

d. Because it is too difficult to predict, the future is not relevant to our moral considerations in the present.

10. According to the moderate version of Singer’s position, I should give until

a. further giving would force me to sacrifice something of moral significance.

b. I reach the point of marginal utility.

c. further giving would bring my income below my nation’s average.

d. further giving would require a dramatic change in my lifestyle.

True or False

11. Singer believes that our duties to those who live on the other side of the world are lesser than our duties to our neighbors.*

a. True

b. False

12. Singer believes that my duty to do something about an evil that I alone can prevent is greater than my duty to do something about an evil that millions of others are in a position to alleviate.*

a. True

b. False

13. Singer claims that rich nations have the capacity to reduce the suffering from famine and natural disasters to very small proportions.

a. True

b. False

14. In technical terms, the duty of the affluent to assist those suffering from preventable evils in poor countries is “supererogatory” according to Singer.

a. True

b. False

15. Singer’s proposal would require a dramatic alteration of the way we think about moral issues.*

a. True

b. False

16. The distinction between charity and duty is justified, according to Singer, by the social origins of moral attitudes.

a. True

b. False

17. Singer admits that the disappearance of modern consumer society, with all of its comforts and conveniences, would be a morally bad consequence that moral theorizing must contend with.

a. True

b. False

18. Singer believes that we should be working full-time to relieve the great suffering common in many parts of the world.*

a. True

b. False

19. Singer’s stated task in this article is to properly describe how people make moral judgments, not urge readers to revise their beliefs and practices.*

a. True

b. False

20. Singer considers the moderate version of his position to be more reasonable than the strong version.*

a. True

b. False

Essay

21. What kinds of lifestyle changes would you have to make to live according to the moderate version of Singer’s position? How about the strong version? Are you willing to make these kinds of changes? Be sure to support your position with carefully thought-out reasons.

22. Is geographical proximity morally relevant? That is, do we have a greater duty to the needy in our own country than we do to those in other parts of the world? Why or why not? What does Singer say about this?

23. What moral principle does Singer invoke to support his argument? What grounds does he give in support of this principle? Do you find the principle to be a plausible one? Why or why not?

24. What effect does Singer think that the acceptance of his principle would have on our moral conceptual scheme? What effects does he think this would have on society? Are these effects desirable? Defend your answer.

25. What practical problems does Singer claim his argument faces? How does he respond to these problems? Is his response adequate?