In 1000 words (+/- 20), outline and explain Peter Singer’s central argument in “Famine, Affluence, and
Morality” and his defense of each premise.
– Be sure to separate out the premises and the conclusion.
– Try to show how each premise connects to the next, and try to make implicit premises explicit.
– Make sure to explain any technical terms.
– For each premise discuss how Singer defends that premise. What does he appeal to? Does he
have evidence? Does he argue for the premise or not? What further principles does he think the
premise rests upon? Etc.
– If you quote Singer, be sure to give the page number from the article.
– Use normal font & margins, include a word count, no citations needed.
Assessment:
This assignment is meant to test and help you in both reading comprehension and in expository writing.
Try to be as clear and concise as possible as clarity and length will be key in assessing your papers.
Your grade will depend on how well you have identified and outlined Singer’s central argument and
how well you have explained Singer’s own defense of each premise given. Be sure to include all of the
premises, but try also to leave out things that are irrelevant to the central argument and Singer’s defense
of each premise. This is an exercise in understanding argumentation, exposition, and being concise.
On the next page is an example of an argument that we have discussed which has been outlined in
premise/conclusion form. This is an example of how you may start your paper, if so inclined.
Mill and the “Swine” Objection.
John Stuart Mill was a defender of Utilitarianism. According to this view, people ought to act in ways
that promote their own happiness as well as the happiness of others. In order to promote the most
happiness, people should do whatever it is easiest to do that makes them and others as happy as
possible. Now it would seem that the easiest thing for people to do to be happy is fulfill their base
desires (lounging, eating, having sex). Therefore, it seems that a consequence of Utilitarianism is that
people ought to act in ways that fulfill their base desires as much as possible. Mill recognizes this
argument, but he rejects it. The following is Mills argument against the “swine” objection.
Mill’s Argument Against the Swine Objection (Outlined)
The proponents of the Swine objection suppose that human beings are capable of no pleasures except
those of which swine are capable (base pleasures). Mill counters with this argument:
1. If human beings are capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable, then the
good life of a swine would be “good enough” for a human as well. (p. 58)
2. Clearly, the good life of a swine is not good enough for a human.
3. Therefore, human beings must be capable of more pleasures than that of which a swine is
capable.
4. Therefore, the swine objection is wrong.
Explanation of the Argument
Mill’s argument depends on two main premises…
…
Mill’s Defense of Premise 1
Mill claims that premise 1 must be true because…