Peter Singer "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Read the following passage and do the following: 1) Reconstruct the premises and conclusion of the following argument? Is the argument logically valid? Are the premises of the argument true, why or why not? 2) Describe what role this passage plays in Peter Singers larger argument about our obligations to those who are suffering worldwide. "I do not think I need to say much in defense of the refusal to take proximity and distance into account. The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away. If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far away from him)." (5) Utilitarianism Watch the following clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24cQfQJ79Rs) and pretend you are a utilitarian: 1) Come up with reasons for preferring to save the ship with the civilians: Keep in mind that all these passengers have families, life goals, and intrinsic human worth. 2) Come up with reasons for preferring to save the ship with the prisoners: Keep in mind that all these passengers have families, life goals, and intrinsic human worth. 3) Assuming there are an equal number of people on each ship, try and determine if there are any MORALLY RELVANT reasons for choosing one ship over the other. If so what are they, if not say why each of the ships are of equal moral worth. Abori Watch the following clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_uUEaeqFog) and do the following: 1) As the clip indicates, Kant believes that if you do the right thing and something bad happens you are not to blame. Come up with an example of your own in which someone does everything they are supposed to do but a bad consequence occurs anyway. Is Kant right to say that this person is blameless? Why/ Why not? 2) As the clip indicates, Kant believes that if you do the wrong thing in order to bring about good consequences and something bad happens you are to blame. Come up with an example of your own in which someone tries to bring about a good consequence by doing something wrong, but a bad consequence occurs anyway. Is Kant right to say that this person is now responsible for the bad thing? Why/ Why not?