Am I wrong for prioritizing my kid? — RogueAI

No. Out-group preference is quite literally an evolutionary «death end».

Right. A moral theory that says it's wrong to prioritize your family is not going to appeal to too many people.

No, in that case, you're not wrong. Singer writes (I highlight the important part) : "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without there by sacrificing anything of comparable
moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it."
A problem would appear in the following situation: saving your child or two stranger's children.
Anyway, to go back to Singer's article: fortunately, most people can *both* provide for their own children and prevent (at least temporarily) the death of children in poor countries.

Going back to your first intuition: the only way to defend it, as far as I understood it, would be showing that the life of a person in a developing country is of so little benefit to humanity that it doesn't even deserve to be saved, even though saving them just requires to avoid buying the most advanced computers or trips to Tahiti (!)
I can't see how one could defend that

A problem would appear in the following situation: saving your child or two stranger's children. — LFranc

I'm still going to save my own kid. It's hard to see a scenario where I don't do that. And I don't think I would beat myself up for that either. I guess if the fate of an entire city were at stake, I might change that view.

Was Hitler as morally valuable (and what does that mean, exactly?) as Jonas Salk? — RogueAI

I agree that the meaning of "morally valuable" is unclear. But I also think that Jonas Salk was a morally better person than Hitler. But I also think that both of them and John Doe are all equally human persons and therefore have exactly the same moral claims on the rest of us. That's what human rights are all about.

Suppose I'm faced with a choice of saving my child or a stranger's child. Am I wrong for prioritizing my kid? — RogueAI

No, of course not. But I would be wrong for prioritizing your kid over someone else's kid. (Given that we have no social connection beyond this forum.)

I do not believe everyone is equally morally valuable and so his conclusions dont apply to me — Ourora Aureis

I think I can understand what you're saying. But you need to say that you don't believe that everyone is equally valuable and consequently that Singer's argument is invalid, and so his conclusions don't apply to you. But it would be inconsistent to admit that his argument is valid and deny the obligation that follows from it.

But I would be wrong for prioritizing your kid over someone else's kid. — Ludwig V

Good point. I agree with that. But what would a consequentalist say? Suppose we have a crystal ball and we know that one kid will grow up to cure a kind of cancer and another kid will grow up to become a drug addict and die of an OD at a young age, and we have to save one or the other. Should we prioritize the cancer curer over the drug addict? What about deciding who gets a life saving organ? If the organ is an equally good match for a 70 year old and a 5 year old, who should get it? Shouldn't the five year old get it? What about if an organ is an equally good match for two 30 year olds, but one ruined his liver by drinking, while the other came down with a rare liver disease. Should the drinker get equal priority? What if he's sobered up, but also has a history of relapsing?

The problem in the ethical theories created by many self-regarded saints is that they end up in the logical conclusion that we should kill a person (or ourselves) to harvest organs to save many others. That however does not align with our moral intuition, so it is safe to discard the theory.

My opinion is that even coming up with a normative ethical theory is already missing the point of what ethics is supposed to be.

Thanks for talking about this thing that you can't talk about though, it was very interesting — LFranc

As you please.

However, that is okay for Singer, because helping the poor (or whether the duty of helping the very poor when we have extra money) can be done without the help of humanitarian organizations. Maybe Singer should have insisted on that more — LFranc

Agreed. The moral obligation certainly exists in Islam in the form of zakaat, i.e. the mandatory charity levy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat

Zakat (or Zakāh) is one of the five pillars of Islam.[a][3] Zakat is a form of almsgiving, often collected by the Muslim Ummah.[1] It is considered in Islam a religious obligation,[4][5] and by Quranic ranking, is next after prayer (salat) in importance.[6]

As one of the Five Pillars of Islam, zakat is a religious duty for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth to help the needy.[7][8] It is a mandatory charitable contribution, often considered to be a tax.[9][10]

So, in Islamic terms, Singer's apostolic exhortatation translates into:

Don't forget to donate zakaat!

Suppose we have a crystal ball and we know that one kid will grow up to cure a kind of cancer and another kid will grow up to become a drug addict and die of an OD at a young age, and we have to save one or the other. — RogueAI

I'm not very interested in this possibility, but in this one:- "Suppose we don't have a crystal ball. Should we prioritize one over the other?" Since that one is where we are, let's have the answer. Considering the other possibility is just messing about.
OK. Messing about can be fun.
If someone claimed to have a crystal ball, would I go along with it? No. Because there will be many other consequences of my action and I couldn't possibly make that decision unless I know them all. My bet is that when I do, there will be so many factors on each side that no rational decision is possible.
What would convince you, beyond rational doubt, that a proffered crystal ball is always correct in its predictions? What would persuade you to trust your own life to it? (After all, the crystal ball might finger you for the chop.)

The problem in the ethical theories created by many self-regarded saints is that they end up in the logical conclusion that we should kill a person (or ourselves) to harvest organs to save many others. That however does not align with our moral intuition, so it is safe to discard the theory. — Lionino

I have heard that a healthy, fresh, corpse can save nine lives. Not bad for one death.
I don't trust "intuition", except as a starting-point for evaluation.

My opinion is that even coming up with a normative ethical theory is already missing the point of what ethics is supposed to be. — Lionino

I don't disagree with you. But I'm not sure I know what the point of ethics is supposed to be.

The moral obligation certainly exists in Islam in the form of zakaat, i.e. the mandatory charity levy. — Tarskian

Thanks for the reminder. But I think that "charity levy" is self-contradictory. A levy for charitable purposes is possible, but the justification for it would be justice, not charity. And so, I am not opposed to "charity" in the name of justice - for example, as an intervention when authorities refuse to implement justice. Food banks, for example - or indeed, a charity for famine relief. Come to think of it, if we interpret Singer's argument as about justice, it would have considerably more traction.

The entire premise that folks are obligated to donate to a charity misunderstands the meaning of "donate".

But I'm not sure I know what the point of ethics is supposed to be. — Ludwig V

Neither am I sure, but I know that some things are not its point, and normative theories are one of them — we are humans, not robots. If I had to guess, both Kant (I am confident about this one) and John S. Mill had autism, much stronger than mine at least.

I don't trust "intuition", except as a starting-point for evaluation. — Ludwig V

Do you not trust yours that we shouldn't kill someone healthy to save 9 who are dying?

Speaking of organs, I believe there is a moral imperative to be an organ donour. The issue is that, in some cases, once someone is known to be an organ donour, less efforts will be made to save the person in critical condition, so you are basically being mainslaughtered for being altruistic. Corruption ruins all, I propose harsh punishments for the wicked.

Speaking of organs, I believe there is a moral imperative to be an organ donour. — Lionino

Should the state consider you an organ donor unless you notify them otherwise (presumed consent)?

I don't think so, for the problem I stated.

Mayo clinic says that's a myth. You have any evidence to back it up?

Mayo clinic says that's a myth. — RogueAI

Ask ketchup clinic next.

It's your claim. Can you back it up or not?

You read the following from a website you had never seen before:

Myth: If I agree to donate my organs, the hospital staff won't work as hard to save my life.

Fact: When you go to the hospital for treatment, the health care team tries to save your life, not someone else's. You get the best care you can get.

and thought "Oh, chucks, so surely nobody would be corrupt enough to harvest your organs legally!".

Life isn't Reddit.

Speaking of medicine, here is the actual Hypoccratic Oath, not some abstract thing that nurses dancing on TikTok vaguely hear about in their studies:

and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion

and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males

Do you have any evidence or not? I'm willing to change my views on presumed consent if I see something compelling along the lines of what you're saying, but so far you're just talking out your ass.

Do you not trust yours that we shouldn't kill someone healthy to save 9 who are dying? — Lionino

Yes. But I'm open to argument.

Should the state consider you an organ donor unless you notify them otherwise (presumed consent)? — RogueAI

I think this is a situation in which silence should not be taken as consent. However, presumed consent might be better than the current situation (as I understand it), which is that if you don't express a view, your nearest and (possibly) dearest will be asked to decide for you. Are you sure that they will decide as you would have decided or, perhaps, that they will decide correctly?

I believe there is a moral imperative to be an organ donour. — Lionino

Yes. But that doesn't mean it should become a legal imperative.

The issue is that, in some cases, once someone is known to be an organ donour, less efforts will be made to save the person in critical condition, so you are basically being mainslaughtered for being altruistic. — Lionino

It is a worry, I suppose. I think the possibility that efforts to save me will be pushed too far is much more likely. There comes a point when continued efforts amount to torture.
The real difficulty is that there may be no right answer.

If I had to guess, both Kant (I am confident about this one) and John S. Mill had autism, much stronger than mine at least. — Lionino

That's not something you should guess about. However, it is true that autism is a spectrum and mild autism may be much more common than we suppose. But whatever your opinion, it should not interfere with proper, serious, consideration of your philosophy. Dismissing your view just because your mental health is less than perfect is simply prejudice.
However, I share your suspicion of normative theories of the conventtional kind. They seem to me to be rather unhelpful - even distracting.

The entire premise that folks are obligated to donate to a charity misunderstands the meaning of "donate". — LuckyR

Quite so.

That's not something you should guess about. However, it is true that autism is a spectrum and mild autism may be much more common than we suppose. But whatever your opinion, it should not interfere with proper, serious, consideration of your philosophy. Dismissing your view just because your mental health is less than perfect is simply prejudice.
However, I share your suspicion of normative theories of the conventtional kind. They seem to me to be rather unhelpful - even distracting. — Ludwig V

Ok, let's go about this.

Normative ethics is, basically, if a theory is accepted, the set of rules which our human actions should be based on, not basing our actions on those rules is less than ideal.

Ethics is weakly defined as the philosophy of good behaviour (metaethically this definition might be circular, but not an issue here).

Philosophers talk not only of good behaviour, but of love, art, virtue, politics, technology.

Narcissistic psychopaths, specially when untreated, are not quite able to experience love (please no solipsism argument here for this conversation hinges on behaviour correctly reflecting mental states).

So, a narcissistic psychopath could undoutably make a good logician or philosopher of science, but surely a narcissistic psychopath would not make a good philosopher of love.

Likewise, there may be a set of psychological traits that may make someone anxious about the fluid and uncertain nature of what constitutes good behaviour. Because of that, they may invent a set of rigid rules to make up for that. I think that, unfortunately, that misses the very nature of good behaviour, which is ethics.

(please no solipsism argument here for this conversation hinges on behaviour correctly reflecting mental states). — Lionino

I believe that it is not appropriate behaviour to base an argument on a philosophical doctrine that I do not believe. "If P then Q" is not a sound argument if P is false. But I have seen people attempt that tactic. (I suspect that, in truth, they are just trying to change the subject.)

Narcissistic psychopaths, specially when untreated, are not quite able to experience love (please no solipsism argument here for this conversation hinges on behaviour correctly reflecting mental states). — Lionino

I don't know what your training or background may be, but I'm inclined to think that one needs better information before beginning to pin psychiatric diagnoses on people based on the kind of information we have about both Kant and Mill.

Likewise, there may be a set of psychological traits that may make someone anxious about the fluid and uncertain nature of what constitutes good behaviour. Because of that, they may invent a set of rigid rules to make up for that. I think that, unfortunately, that misses the very nature of good behaviour, which is ethics. — Lionino

. There is plausibility in the idea that personality traits may influence the philosophical doctrines that people sign up to. But that does not mean that the position that they sign up to is not sound.
I suppose you understand that your argument here might count under the tactic of giving a dog a bad name.
I have no trouble agreeing with you that ethics and morality are not a matter of a set of rigid rules, though rules of thumb may be helpful.

I just think that whatever psychological difficulties or abnormalities Kant and Mill might have laboured under, the theories they propound deserve serious consideration in their own right. If nothing else, it would be a bit over the top, wouldn't it, to surmise that all the people who have accepted their theories would also register on the autism spectrum - unless there's some evidence (apart from their accepting Kant/Mill's theories)

His argument is valid because, whether he realises it or not, its based upon some assumed values. If you value everyone equally then his argument is pretty good (outside of the faults I already mentioned). However, if you dont have that value then his argument simply doesnt apply to you. Values are perspective based, and so the conclusions of moral arguments are aswell. This is true whether or not he personally thinks of his argument this way, I dont know his position nor care.

But I think that "charity levy" is self-contradictory. A levy for charitable purposes is possible, but the justification for it would be justice, not charity. — Ludwig V

Zakaat is in principle not enforced by government (even though in some countries it loosely is) but by religious self-discipline. If you don't want to do it, then you obviously don't. However, it is inculcated from a young age that it is a moral obligation, surrounded by quite a bit of social pressure.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. All the positive things modern societies can produce are already largely displaced by economic activity that is deemed more profitable (vaccines vs. erection pills, ending world hunger vs. over-processed foods, etc. etc.).

But this accepts a world where people are exploited and nature destroyed to support a lifestyle that isn't sustainable and to then fix it by redistributing wealth gained through exploitaition and destruction. The more reasonable answer is to stop exploiting and destroying things.