(P1) When wealthy individuals donate their discretionary income to poverty relief, they stop something bad from happening without sacrificing anything equally valuable. ... (P2) If someone can stop something bad from happening without sacrificing anything equally valuable, then they are obligated to do it. ... (C1) Therefore, wealthy individuals are obligated to donate their discretionary income to poverty relief.

Question

Answer

Con: Against P2, it's not always clear that someone's belief about whether an action could stop something bad from happening would actually, if done, stop that bad thing from happening. Further, sometimes an action has unpredictable consequences, which in some cases could create even worse outcomes.

Answer

Con: Against (P2), most of us could probably save someone's life (without sacrificing anything equally valuable) by donating a kidney, but we don't think that we're all obligated to donate our kidneys.

Answer

Pro: To support (P2), note that if there were a child drowning in a shallow pond, and you could save that child without putting yourself in danger, then you are obligated to do it, even if you would ruin your expensive clothes.

Answer

Pro: To support (P1), donating to poverty relief stops something bad from happening because it stops suffering and death, and those things are bad.

Poverty Relief (2022 Central APA)

Pros

Cons

To support (P1), donating to poverty relief stops something bad from happening because it stops suffering and death, and those things are bad.

To support (P2), note that if there were a child drowning in a shallow pond, and you could save that child without putting yourself in danger, then you are obligated to do it, even if you would ruin your expensive clothes.

Against (P2), most of us could probably save someone's life (without sacrificing anything equally valuable) by donating a kidney, but we don't think that we're all obligated to donate our kidneys.

Against P2, it's not always clear that someone's belief about whether an action could stop something bad from happening would actually, if done, stop that bad thing from happening. Further, sometimes an action has unpredictable consequences, which in some cases could create even worse outcomes.

Selected claim, supporting its parent

Pro claim 1

To support (P1), donating to poverty relief stops something bad from happening because it stops suffering and death, and those things are bad.

Pro claim 2

To support (P2), note that if there were a child drowning in a shallow pond, and you could save that child without putting yourself in danger, then you are obligated to do it, even if you would ruin your expensive clothes.

Con claim 1

Against (P2), most of us could probably save someone's life (without sacrificing anything equally valuable) by donating a kidney, but we don't think that we're all obligated to donate our kidneys.

Con claim 2

Against P2, it's not always clear that someone's belief about whether an action could stop something bad from happening would actually, if done, stop that bad thing from happening. Further, sometimes an action has unpredictable consequences, which in some cases could create even worse outcomes.