The Life You Can Save: Peter Singer's Practical Ethics

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't think I misunderstood.

Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene ? What twisted morale can lead one to rationalize that the rich ones should give more than they give already in taxes to somebody else ?

This is what I asked you to explain. WHY on the Earth do you think it's "necessary" to intervene and expect someone to feed and clothes somebody else ? Why expect help instead of helping yourself ?

Because extreme poverty is usually not the fault of that person. It is not because they are lazy. There are places in Africa and India where people really don't have options and they can't escape.

DanP, I really think you are suffering from not being able to identify with the victim. If you can in person go to a hospital and see a child on a bed suffering and not give the doctor $15 for a vaccine then I guess you would be consistent, but I think you'd cave for the right reasons. But because you are in front on a computer in a relatively comfortable environment thousands of miles away, you can afford to look away and rationalize with social science objections.

Think of the pond scenario again. You'd jump in the pond to save a drowning child, no? If the only option to save the child were to hand over $15, you'd immediately hand over $15, no? Then why are you telling me you'd walk away from the drowning child now?

 

[DanP]

Because extreme poverty is usually not the fault of that person. It is not because they are lazy. There are places in Africa and India where people really don't have options and they can't escape.

I agree, but the solution does not stay in individual donations. How many of you involved in this thread knows who was Norman Borlaug ? The solution to help those ppl is simply to come up with the solutions at the scale Borlaug did. The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in food industry.

IMO individual donations are as I said, a trap. First of all, as we seen in this thread already,
some ppl came to the conclusion that "when you have a surplus", you *SHOULD AT LEAST* give some away. This is not so. You give if you want, and instead of other ppl expecting you to give what you have, they should be grateful if you choose to give.

DanP, I really think you are suffering from not being able to identify with the victim. If you can in person go to a hospital and see a child on a bed suffering and not give the doctor $15 for a vaccine then I guess you would be consistent, but I think you'd cave for the right reasons. But because you are in front on a computer in a relatively comfortable environment thousands of miles away, you can afford to look away and rationalize with social science objections.

I walked the indian subcontinent, I worked in Sri Lanka, seen some god forbidden communities there, I seen poverty in Asia, I seen it in my country. I seen old ppl in hospitals , waiting for hours to have a MD look at them, barely able to contain their pain and not fall from the stairs for exhaustion. I seen in communist time old ppl with a rationalizing card waiting at interminable queues to get a bottle of milk. I seen enough ****, as many of us did.

Im not made of stone, each of those events caused emotions in me.

You can't accuse me of looking away. But yes, you can accuse me of being somehow disconnected now as we speak. Disconnected enough to say :

1. The solution to world social problems lies in politics and applied sciences, not in individual donations.
2. That the idea that ppl should cut on their "luxury items" is against human nature. Humans are obsessed with status, there is little surprise here, and those items are very powerful signals.
3. That nobody should believe that entity X has the obligation to help entity Y. It all good when X does it, but our society should not grow reliant on a higher class for survival. It's a two edged sword. IMO reliance on the higher class for survival will only widen the social gap
and will slowly institute a hegemony of the higher class over the clients.
4. Once you came to believe that "some persons should at least give", you are slowly closing yourself to Marxism.

Think of the pond scenario again. You'd jump in the pond to save a drowning child, no? If the only option to save the child were to hand over $15, you'd immediately hand over $15, no? Then why are you telling me you'd walk away from the drowning child now?

The immediate vicinity of a drowning kid would cause a very powerful activation of the limbic system in my brain. Powerful enough to override my frontal cortex, and cause me to act by either becoming frozen, either assume the risk and act to save the child, even if the water conditions are a threat to my well being.

The simple evocation of the scenario does not cause the same limbic system activation. In effect I can rationalize.

I don't tell you that I would walk away from the kid. I am telling you that IMO giving money for 3rd world countries is not a solution. That the best way we can help them is by politics. And that anyone who believe into variants of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is dangerously close to marxism.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't tell you that I would walk away from the kid. I am telling you that IMO giving money for 3rd world countries is not a solution. That the best way we can help them is by politics. And that anyone who believe into variants of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is dangerously close to marxism.

The difference here is that I am asking to consider a very narrow circumstance and you keep trying to make it into a broad solution. It won't save the world, but it will save that one kid. That is all I am saying. Isn't saving that one kid worth $15? Work on politics is besides the point.

 

[DanP]

The difference here is that I am asking to consider a very narrow circumstance and you keep trying to make it into a broad solution. It won't save the world, but it will save that one kid. That is all I am saying. Isn't saving that one kid worth $15? Work on politics is besides the point.

I think it's more correct to say that 15 USD will feed a kid for X days. Or that it can buy X vaccine doses. Or X antibiotics doses which can be used to treat a men for X days. there is no guarantee that 15 USD / head will save anyone.

Im also telling that I don't want anyone to impose his twisted morale on our society. It;s golden if you are a charitable person, and you choose to give and try to save others.

But for me it becomes a problem of grave political implications every time somebody tries to
shove such ides as rationalizing what is a unnecessary luxury for me and asking me to cut on it. Today they ask you to give from your so called unnecessary luxury, tomorrow they'll bit the hand who fed them.

If Singer would just make a passionate plead to help others, I would be OK with is view. But no, he tries to make it a "moral imperative". This is what is wrong with his view. Ofc , he is philosophizer, so he can afford to emit anything. But I prefer to swim with the likes of Borlaug. That man saved billions, very few ppl really know who he was and what he did, and
he did that without trying to impose his philosophical view of the world on others.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think it's more correct to say that 15 USD will feed a kid for X days. Or that it can buy X vaccine doses. Or X antibiotics doses which can be used to treat a men for X days. there is no guarantee that 15 USD / head will save anyone.

I don't know what the success rate for the measles or smallpox vaccine is, but since no one really gets in the US, I'd conclude it's quite high. Saying there is no guarantee is not a good reason to refuse a boy a vaccine.

Im also telling that I don't want anyone to impose his twisted morale on our society. It;s golden if you are a charitable person, and you choose to give and try to save others.

Our own morale compass should impose this view. Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable? How is that twisted?

But for me it becomes a problem of grave political implications every time somebody tries to
shove such ides as rationalizing what is a unnecessary luxury for me and asking me to cut on it.

It is not anyone else other than yourself who should decide what is necessary and what is not. If you feel buying a $200 watch instead of a $100 alternative watch is worth the ramifications of not being able to use that $100 difference to save some children's lives, then so be it. I am not calling for some government mandate nor is Singer. This is about personal responsibility. Would you feel embarrassed if there were an article on the front page of the news about how you decided to spend extra money on a watch instead of saving a child?

If Singer would just make a passionate plead to help others, I would be OK with is view. But no, he tries to make it a "moral imperative". This is what is wrong with his view. Ofc , he is philosophizer, so he can afford to emit anything. But I prefer to swim with the likes of Borlaug. That man saved billions, very few ppl really know who he was and what he did, and
he did that without trying to impose his philosophical view of the world on others.

Yes he is a philosopher, this is what he does. Before you assume too much about him and his views I will again state that this whole thread is about one small argument he makes early in the book. I think you'd enjoy the complete book where he fleshes everything out is turns more realistic and practical than you think. For one thing he values volunteering time more than money. Certainly there are people like Borlaug who did great work as a humanitarian and Buffet who has pledged billions, but we can't all be these people. This argument is something everyone can be aware of and use to make better spending choices.

 

[Lacy33]

Who died trying ?

Martin Luther King
Ghandi
JFK
John Lennon
Joan of Arc
Benazir Bhutto
"Hermila Garcia, the 38-year-old chief of police of the town of Meoqui in the Mexican state of Chihuahua."
I'm sure I forgot one. Pardon.
My great, great grandpa was killed by Napoleon in a street fight. Grandpa was just in the hood trying to keep the French gang off the street.

And so on.

Really Mr. DanP
These are just the big names. How about all the little folks who serve in the forces. Fire, police, Army and so on?
How about the UN workers, and any aid program who goes into a dangerous,uncomfortable place to do good and gets hurts, sick or worse?
Blah blah blahh you know already.
Now go and do good!

 

[DanP]

Our own morale compass should impose this view. Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable? How is that twisted?

But the reality is that it doesn't. If our moral cognition would impose this view, we would be all cuddly teddy bears which would work "for the good of the species", and all the world would be a great kibbutz. I am more inclined to believe that there is a balance between our helping behaviors and our personal needs which sits in a form of a Nash equilibrium. IMO attempts to push the balance too far artificially, through social engineering, are destined to fail.

I am not calling for some government mandate nor is Singer.

It;s not you or Singer which I am worried about. Is the radical leftists who will very fast begin to think it;s natural and a right of the poor to be supported by the rich.

This is about personal responsibility. Would you feel embarrassed if there were an article on the front page of the news about how you decided to spend extra money on a watch instead of saving a child?

Are you appealing to my limbic system ? It won't work with me. But you have talent at framing your questions to appeal to emotions. I say framing, for you should have asked me "donate 15 USD instead of buying a watch which is 100 USD more expensive... ". But yeah, shame is a very powerful emotion. One of the motivators behind social conformity. If we would live in a world where the press should write such articles and the vast majority of your social group would exercise restrain and limit their status seeking behaviors, yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure. But we do not live in such a world. We live in a world where driving a Mercedes opens you doors and gets you chicks :P Sad ? Probably. Natural ? Yes. Our neurobiology and some social forces play tricks on us.

I think you'd enjoy the complete book where he fleshes everything out is turns more realistic and practical than you think.

I would probably enjoy the book yes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Greg, given that probably 99.999% of everyone living, and everyone who has ever lived, could never live up to the standards suggested here, isn't the notion of "a bad person", a moot point? How can one logically argue that everyone dead or alive was or is bad? Bad compared to what; aliens?

This is why [in part] the Catholics have saints. A few very special people are able to rise above their nature, but most of us are weak selfish beings who just want to be comfortable. Is that bad? No, it is human.

There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

 

[DanP]

Now go and do good!

Yes ma'am !

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

But the reality is that it doesn't. If our moral cognition would impose this view, we would be all cuddly teddy bears which would work "for the good of the species", and all the world would be a great kibbutz. I am more inclined to believe that there is a balance between our helping behaviors and our personal needs which sits in a form of a Nash equilibrium. IMO attempts to push the balance too far artificially, through social engineering, are destined to fail.

It doesn't, but I think we all have the capacity to have that golden charitable compass. Our ability to discuss it proves that. Is our morale will really this weak? I agree balance is key and realistic. But I and Singer feel everyone could do a lot more. Certainly go see that movie on the weekend and buy a nice silk tie. But there must be better conscious effort to weigh and consider these alternate options to help some humanity that are helpless. The only people who complain about having to help and are who are in the position to help.

It;s not you or Singer which I am worried about. Is the leftists who will very fast begin to think it;s natural and a right of the poor to be supported by the rich.

The extreme poor do deserve to be helped and supported. I'm not talking about people on welfare.

We live in a world where driving a Mercedes opens you doors and gets you chicks :P Sad ? Probably. Natural ? Yes. Our neurobiology and some social forces play tricks on us.

But again we do have the capacity to rise above. Just by discussing this issue you acknowledge your awareness to the issue, but still seem content to live in a world where you see yourself as the victim of nature. You think nature made me selfish, so I will not fight it.

Greg, given that probably 99.999% of everyone living, and everyone who has ever lived, could never live up to the standards suggested here, isn't the notion of "a bad person", a moot point? How can one logically argue that everyone dead or alive was or is bad? Bad compared to what; aliens?

This is why [in part] the Catholics have saints. A few very special people are able to rise above their nature, but most of us are weak selfish beings who just want to be comfortable. Is that bad? No, it is human.

There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

Interesting Ivan. I think as I mention with DanP, it is just a complete lack of morale will. We know what is right to do, but we sink into apathy and ignorance. We have the capacity as we have noted a few of the certainly thousands of people who have overcome this weak morale fortitude. We personally need to look at ourselves and ask why we can't and whether we can live with the fact that we not doing more has cost lives.

Ivan, certainly the system is a working solution, but it has saved millions of people and it means everything to those people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting Ivan. I think as I mention with DanP, it is just a complete lack of morale will. We know what is right to do, but we sink into apathy and ignorance. We have the capacity as we have noted a few of the certainly thousands of people who have overcome this weak morale fortitude. We personally need to look at ourselves and ask why we can't and whether we can live with the fact that we not doing more has cost lives.

Ivan, certainly the system is a working solution, but it has saved millions of people and it means everything to those people.

When you say "the right thing to do" you are defining morality. What is the basis for this defintion? Many religious people would derive their defintion from the Bible or other religious texts, but to define morality in the absence of divine dicates gets pretty dicey. It seems a bit of a reach to say that your sense of morality applies to everyone else. One might argue, for example, that my moral obligation is to provide the best life that I can for my own children.

The system is working? Then give me the dollar amount needed to solve this problem once and for all, and a deadline. What you call a solution, I might call black hole for wealth. I have never seen an end game here.

What are the rates of population growth in countries like India, for example. You tell me how this will ever end even if we drain every dime from this country [which we are actively doing at this moment, btw, through our trade deficit].

I am completely sympathetic to your argument, but I am also sympathetic to the frustration of the problem.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

When you say "the right thing to do" you are defining morality. What is the basis for this defintion?

I think everyone can agree that if you have the ability to save a life, it is moral to do so.

The system is working?

I forgot to add "not" as supported by my "but" :)

What are the rates of population growth in countries like India, for example. You tell me how this will ever end even if we drain every dime from this country.

Larger problems with the system, politics and sociology are irrelevant to the argument as I have discussed with DanP. If you can save a life by donating $15 to vaccinate a child with measles instead of going to movie, you do it. I don't care if the whole system doesn't work. It's about that one child you can effect with each spending decision. It matters to that one child.

 

[DanP]

The extreme poor do deserve to be helped and supported.

Sure they do. We may differ a bit though in our vision on how this is best to be accomplished.

Just by discussing this issue you acknowledge your awareness to the issue, but still seem content to live in a world where you see yourself as the victim of nature. You think nature made me selfish, so I will not fight it.

This is false. But it's also a very predictable statement and it is not the first time I heard it. It comes up every time when someone dare to hint at evolutionary and biologic factors as having a modulative effect on human behavior. Acknowledging the nature IMO is not to become a victim, but to gain power. Understanding how our behavior is modulated by social forces, physical environment, genetics and evolutionary factors can be of great use to implement very practical social solutions to fight high criminality rates, implement social policies for the poor, preventive health care and so on.

Also I do not think that nature made me "selfish". Us humans are perfectly capable of both competitive and cooperative behaviors. But the interplay of those is complex, and it sits in a equibrium.

If anything, I say that understanding more about the human behavior can offer us a real chance in becoming more open toward each other, and implement realistic policies which
do work. Acknowledging this can save a great deal of frustration and lower the expectation
which one may have towards the integral of the society. It's also the key to "we must do better". Understanding how our social and moral cognition works is paramount for a good understanding of helping behaviors. Many of those factors are already known.

Our species is the least genetically constrained species which ever walked the earth. But at the same time, we have thousand of genetic propensities. Small modulations which will combine with modulations of the pre-natal environment, of the rearing environment, current environment and so on, and will create a resultant behavior.

Interesting Ivan. I think as I mention with DanP, it is just a complete lack of morale will. We know what is right to do, but we sink into apathy and ignorance.

Its not apathy and ignorance. This behavior results from the interplay of many factors, ranging from biology to social forces acting from the society in which you live.

We have the capacity as we have noted a few of the certainly thousands of people who have overcome this weak morale fortitude.

Maybe they didn't had to overcome anything. Perhaps they are just a genetic variation of a receptor gene for the self regulation of oxytocin. This coupled with a certain type of rearing environment, may be enough to strongly modulate their behavior toward the end of the spectrum of helping behaviors. In a word, they where already the "saints" when they reached adult age. Please note that I am not saying they ARE this. Obviously I didnt studied them.

Just something to ponder to.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?

Great thread, Greg!

Singer probably addresses this, but I think a lot of it has to do with wrapping our heads around the overwhelming amount of need in the world. The images we see of starving children and abused animals is so painful and overwhelming that the mind reels just trying to process it. It's easier for people to push it away entirely from their thoughts, and probably rationalize it with, "my contribution is so small, it could only be a drop in the bucket, anyway."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Singer probably addresses this, but I think a lot of it has to do with wrapping our heads around the overwhelming amount of need in the world. The images we see of starving children and abused animals is so painful and overwhelming that the mind reels just trying to process it. It's easier for people to push it away entirely from their thoughts, and probably rationalize it with, "my contribution is so small, it could only be a drop in the bucket, anyway."

I have been certainly guilty of this thought. He does bring it up early in the book, but there is a nice quick example I've heard in a Buddhism book I just finished also:

"A sleepy sea side town awoke to thousands of starfish washing up on their beach. Many people gathered to view and talk about it. After a bit, one boy rushed down to the beach and began throwing starfish back into the sea. A man came down and said "forget it, there are too many to save, what does it matter" and the boy opened his hand and said "it matters to this one".

Again, in this thread we end up thinking too big. This thread is not about so much as solving the entire issue, but saving one worthwhile life at a time by making better spending choices.

 

[Lacy33]

Greg, given that probably 99.999% of everyone living, and everyone who has ever lived, could never live up to the standards suggested here, isn't the notion of "a bad person", a moot point? How can one logically argue that everyone dead or alive was or is bad? Bad compared to what; aliens?

This is why [in part] the Catholics have saints. A few very special people are able to rise above their nature, but most of us are weak selfish beings who just want to be comfortable. Is that bad? No, it is human.

There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

And because it is brought up now and then we reevaluate our personal potential. Good!
With even the potential for Excellent!

 

[K Rool]

Not only would I save a child while it was drowning, I'd save a kitten too. And perhaps many other things that were drowning. Perhaps I should spend some money for saving everything.

 

[Lacy33]

Not only would I save a child while it was drowning, I'd save a kitten too. And perhaps many other things that were drowning. Perhaps I should spend some money for saving everything.

You're getting it.

 

[ThomasT]

What I'm really after here is a response to Singer's argument that "that any money spent on non-essential items and services rather than giving is morally wrong".

He's assuming that it's necessary to help people in need, with the degree of necessity ranging from the sorts of people and situations you're talking about (very high), to, say, somebody who just needs a loan to get by for a while (very low). The question is, necessary according to what criterion or criteria? For the survival of humanity? Apparently not. For the health and well being of a significant portion of humanity? Apparently not. Could the governments, and the very rich, of the world better spend the money at their disposal to help vast numbers of abjectly poor people? Of course.

Is the situation in some impoverished region going to prevent me from buying and consuming stuff that I really don't need? Of course not. As Jarle has pointed out, modern societies are based on the development, production, marketing, and consumption of nonessentials.

Singer's argument is an emotional one intended to get an emotional response. It's valid only on that level in the sense that it might get a significant number of people who weren't giving before to give by making them feel guilty about how they spend some of their money. But I suspect that it will only affect a relatively small portion of the people it's aimed at.

How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child.

This assumes, unnecessarily, that THAT money could have saved a child. An ungrounded assumption, I think.

How should one feel about governments wasting hundreds of billions of dollars when that money could have saved vast numbers of children? Now, that kind of money makes a difference. And the US government has, and wastes, that kind of money. Using Singer's argument to emotion, the US government is responsible for virtually every unnecessary death of every child in the world.

If spending $3 on a candy bar dooms a child to death by not getting a vaccine, how is that not wrong?

If it did, it would be wrong. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

What dooms these children to death is government policies and practices.

I want to stress that Peter also does not support directly giving the people in extreme poverty money or food. He advocates money go towards primarily to medical services and education.

The medical services and education are important of course, but without an accompanying infusion of the stuff (like infrastructure, housing, MONEY and FOOD) that sufficient education might eventually allow the local populations to continue in sustainable communities, then it's all just a continuing temporary solution -- the main beneficiaries of which are transporters, distributors, paid medical, education, and charity staff, etc.

If I were to donate, say, $100 dollars per month to some charity, then I would want most of that money to reach some person or persons in need in the form of MONEY and FOOD. But I believe that very little, if any, of my donation would reach them in that form.

Only governments, and the very wealthy, can do what's really necessary to build sustainable modern societies in these impoverished regions. Putting it on average consumers in affluent societies is an interesting tactic, but it isn't a valid moral argument.

... I think you'd choose differently if you knew that child.

Of course. And this is precisely what makes the candy bar argument an emotional one rather than a logical one.

So, no, I don't feel bad about buying that candy bar, or that can of tennis balls or seeing that movie instead of sending the money to some charity.

And, incidently, though it isn't why I bought those things, I helped all the people whose lives and families depend on me buying those things.

 

[Zarqon]

My two thoughts on this:

1) The argument has been made several times that paying those $15 will save one child, but I'm not so sure this is the full story. I don't have any personal experience of the real situation in places like africa, but from what I gather there are just too many born, such that all cannot survive as long as the system there looks like it does. There is not enough supplies like food to support the population, so if I pay $15 to vaccinate one child he will grow up to steal the food from someone else, who will die in his stead, and I end up not doing good, but only perpetuate the current missery.

Now, I understand this may be slightly extreme, and you might make a net saving effect by constantly pushing in more money, but I really don't like this as a solution. Instead I agree with many of the previous posters in that what is really needed is work on the bigger scale, foreign goverments making sure proper infrastructure is built etc. I don't feel inclined by buy a vaccine for someone, but if you can find me an organization with very competent and trustworth people trying to make long term infrastructure changes or similar (a la CJ Cregg's builing roads from The West Wing), then I will be a lot more inclined to put money there to help out.


2) From a personal point of view, I don't want to feel guilty all the time, every time I buy something for myself. We have gotten very far in the western world to make our situation a comfortable one, for most, but what good was that effort if I should walk around feeling guilty for every single thing I buy? I don't want to be forced to think about the problems in all other places of the Earth all the time, I want to be able to relax and enjoy the things I have, and in the end, I can't really be convinced by any argument that says I should feel bad all the time, so this is a second argument for why I think these problems should be dealt with on the government level, rather than by the individual persons.

 

[DanP]

2) From a personal point of view, I don't want to feel guilty all the time, every time I buy something for myself. We have gotten very far in the western world to make our situation a comfortable one, for most, but what good was that effort if I should walk around feeling guilty for every single thing I buy? I don't want to be forced to think about the problems in all other places of the Earth all the time, I want to be able to relax and enjoy the things I have, and in the end, I can't really be convinced by any argument that says I should feel bad all the time, so this is a second argument for why I think these problems should be dealt with on the government level, rather than by the individual persons.

An emotional response to an emotional argument. But I bet not quite the response Singer expected :P

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Because this is the Philosophy forum, allow me to redefine the argument in a logical way and see what you think

P1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter or medical care are bad

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

P3. By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.

C1. Therefore if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

 

[DanP]

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

You put it in an absolute form, in the form of a moral normative.

I will simply present you the statement that the idea of a moral normative is flawed . By itself , any action is amoral. It is neither wrong, neither right.

It is only the social context which can attach descriptive ethics to such an event. Your current society may consider the affirmation as morally wrong or morally right.

Lets not forget the fact that killing someone can lend you in the electric chair, or make you the hero of the neighborhood. It's all in the social context. We hunt down domestic killers on our soil, but we send the best of us to kill in various regions of the world.

 

[akd_dka]

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

It would be very hard to decide objectively what is nearly as important or not for our living.

If we look at the life of Mahatma Gandhi for instance , he tried to find an answer for this and he came to the conclusion that even institutions such as railways , textile industries , hospitals are not important for a person's well being. (These are noble ideas indeed and Gandhi rightly didn't impose these on his people. He tried to inculcate it in his own life .)He discusses these ideas in his book "Hind Swaraj - Indian home rule". And some of his ideas are borrowed from philosophers such as John Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy. After reading Ruskin's book - "Unto this last" , Gandhi concluded that only life worth living is that of a land tiller and we should only wear home-spun cloth. These ideas are hard to carry out practically and even in India these have been met with limited success.So we shouldn't feel guilty if we are unable to decide what is nearly as important for a living .This question has baffled many a great men for centuries.

IMO , if a person is earning his money through rightful non corrupt means he is entitled to do what he wishes with it provided it doesn't harm his fellow beings.

A person who does donations is a good person , but a person who doesn't do donations isn't a bad person. (a person who does corruption or steals money willfully is a bad person though).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It is only the social context which can attach descriptive ethics to such an event. Your current society may consider the affirmation as morally wrong or morally right.

Perhaps, but then show me a society in which that premise is not overwhelming valued.

 

[waht]

So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives

He is confusing the rich with the middle class. The middle class works its *** off in order to make a living. If you had a family, an innate paternal instinct kicks into "provide" and you'd think twice about donating some of your hard earned income to someone without work halfway across the world.

But if you are rich and are financially secure, then that's a different story. Alot of rich people are philanthropists: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Angelina Jolie, etc. But still, their contributions are absorbed by a black hole. You can only get out of poverty by economic growth. And that takes time unfortunately.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It would be very hard to decide objectively what is nearly as important or not for our living.

So we shouldn't feel guilty if we are unable to decide what is nearly as important for a living .This question has baffled many a great men for centuries.

Certainly a person doesn't need to spend hours a day making arguments for what is and what isn't as important. I am confident most people can make these judgments on what they can do without, without much fuss. It doesn't have to be an exact science.

A person who does donations is a good person , but a person who doesn't do donations isn't a bad person. (a person who does corruption or steals money willfully is a bad person though).

But if a person has been informed that by them choosing a new pair of expensive high heels that a child would die because they needed that money for a vaccine. How is that not a wrong choice? You have a sick child in front of you and a pair of high heels and you choose the heels. Wrong.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

He is confusing the rich with the middle class. The middle class works its *** off in order to make a living. If you had a family, an innate paternal instinct kicks into "provide" and you'd think twice about donating some of your hard earned income to someone without work halfway across the world.

The middle class does not need a new iphone to live. A person in extreme poverty does need a vaccine or a piece of bread to live. One gets the iphone, the other gets no vaccine or bread.

Please see this post
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82

 

[DanP]

Perhaps, but then show me a society in which that premise is not overwhelming valued.

Yours for example. Mine for another example. A status quo, IMO, easily seen out in the wild. Save for several crusaders, if you state that you do not donate, you are not morally condemned by society at large. Nobody will call you imoral. More than that, you can still be looked upon as an outstanding member of the community. You face no social rejection, no pressure to conform. If this norm would be overwhelmingly valued, there would be tremendous social pressure to conform.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yours for example. Mine for another example. A status quo, IMO, easily seen out in the wild. Save for several crusaders, if you state that you do not donate, you are not morally condemned by society at large. Nobody will call you imoral. More than that, you can still be looked upon as an outstanding member of the community. You face no social rejection, no pressure to conform. If this norm would be overwhelmingly valued, there would be tremendous social pressure to conform.

You're telling me that our society thinks that we shouldn't help someone in need even if it doesn't put us out much? I can't believe that is true.

Dan, show that premise (without any adulterating or adding opinions) to 5 people and tell me how many disagree with it.