Letting Die Thesis Summary

Moller’s argument for The Letting Die Thesis essentially states that it is morally required for present people to let those in poverty die even though their deaths can be prevented. By letting present people die, Moller argues that it will allow for a greater amount of future lives to be saved. The basic premiseS that Moller uses to back his argument is that future lives have the same inherent value as present lives, there will continue to be people in absolute poverty in the future, cost of aid will decrease over time, wealth can be increased over time, and that it is often beneficial to delay giving. The first point Moller uses to back his argument is establishing that presently existing people’s lives are just as valuable as future lives. This helps make future and present lives equal and comparable by determining that saving one present life is just as good as saving one future life and vice-versa. The next point states that there will continue to be people in absolute poverty in the future. This is an important point to make because absolute poverty is decreasing every year and the hope is that absolute poverty will be eradicated eventually. By establishing that poverty will still exist, it helps support that delaying aid is beneficial because no good …show more content…
If everyone decides that waiting is the best choice, then those in current need will never receive aid and probably die as a result. Also, it could be used as an excuse for people who say they are waiting to help more people by delaying their aid but never truly intended to give in the first place. Not fully accepting the thesis does not necessarily mean that people are short-sighted, while it is true that sometimes aid that is not needed immediately can endure to wait until more aid can be collected, but since present and future lives are considered equal, one should not be deliberately sacrificed to aid the