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

[Greg Bernhardt]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Peter stresses the term extreme poverty. Not someone who just lives in a trailer or someone on the street. Rather it's where someone's life is in real danger and has no real options (think africa...india...).

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years, the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

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?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea [Broken]

 

[Pengwuino]

Human nature. I also think a lot of people think that they can live the good life now and at some point, they'll return the favor to society... in the future... always.

Then there's the idea of "How can not buying a pair of shoes help someone in Sierra Leon or Niger?" The immediate response could be "give to cause X or cause Y". Then you can immediately respond "I don't trust cause X/Y, how do I know the money gets to the children?". I even hear some people respond "I don't give to them because they're mormons/christians/whatevers!" as if that really matters.

Then of course some people say that since they pay their taxes and that (in the US) our country is the largest provider of aid to africa, they are already helping children in africa. I believe under Bush, the amount of aid almost doubled to a couple billion a year so uhm... I suppose everyone has given about $8 a year. Not the greatest pair of shoes in my opinion.

I think the Haitian disaster was a good example of how people in the US view helping out people in poor countries. I remember reading an op-ed or an actual article about how someone didn't give any money at some donation booth or something for some reason (I don't remember the reason but it was a good one). The group that person was with and I believe the people running the donation booth got very belligerent with her complaining about how could she be so heartless. Guess what? She was a regular volunteer at a soup kitchen and did some other charitable work on a regular basis that I can't recall. Moral of the story? I think most Americans only care to be charitable when a celebrity or "everyone else" is being charitable. As if it is a social status thing.

 

[Lacy33]

Without reading or knowing about this book, my family was just talking about the subject yesterday.
We do not live high, fact is much more simple we would be Amish.
We gave money to the Haiti Relief funds. We boxed supplies with them under the direction of the NYC Haitian community.
Greg, I don't think any of the money or supplies got to the people.
I don't think it's that people don't care, I think it's hard to know who be able to run the funds through and organize in the areas we think we are helping.
Most of us know you travel and have seen a lot. That you are a dooer of good deeds. You have helped a lot. Had we known you were going ahead of time and knew you better then, we would have done better to send the money with you.. You could have found the little shoes and put them on the little feet yourself!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Human nature. I also think a lot of people think that they can live the good life now and at some point, they'll return the favor to society... in the future... always.

Certainly, but again, it's no excuse and Singer's argument holds. Those children who need a vaccine can't wait for our "future".

Then you can immediately respond "I don't trust cause X/Y, how do I know the money gets to the children?". I even hear some people respond "I don't give to them because they're mormons/christians/whatevers!" as if that really matters.

Indeed a problem and Singer dedicates an entire chapter to the issue of charity selection. He seems to favor UNICEF and claims proper charity investigation is well worth the effort.

Then of course some people say that since they pay their taxes and that (in the US) our country is the largest provider of aid to africa, they are already helping children in africa. I believe under Bush, the amount of aid almost doubled to a couple billion a year so uhm... I suppose everyone has given about $8 a year. Not the greatest pair of shoes in my opinion.

Interesting. The impact of Peter's claim is that he suggests donating +50% of what we make. Again, he wants us to think about a child we could vaccinate when we reach for soda. That is the power of the argument.

I think the Haitian disaster was a good example of how people in the US view helping out people in poor countries. Moral of the story? I think most Americans only care to be charitable when a celebrity or "everyone else" is being charitable. As if it is a social status thing.

It helps to get national attention. Again, it's the "out of sight, out of mind". However thousands of people suffer and die every day that could have been saved, but instead we buy those 24 packs of coke and buy $30k trucks. We know this but we continue to act this way. So we decide to not save a child every day we buy something we don't need.

 

[Lacy33]

I don't know if Peter talked about this in his well meaning book, but there are gangs, lame governments, politics, crime, violence and total disorgaization in the best cases keeping the supplies from getting to the people in Haiti.
I know your going to win the Noble Prize for peace one day, but Greg, you are going to have to do the math. That would be upstairs here on this sweet forum your posting.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't know if Peter talked about this in his well meaning book, but there are gangs, lame governments, politics, crime, violence and total disorgaization in the best cases keeping the supplies from getting to the people in Haiti.

Yes, but that is not a reason to avoid giving. There is an organization called http://www.charitynavigator.org/ that evaluates charities. There you can find the good ones.

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.

 

[Lacy33]

Thank you for the link and look forward to touring the site in the morning. Medicine and education are a tall order. Hoping that you young people will have clear heads in spite of the confusion and materialistic world your senior generations have left you. That you can organize and create a dialoug that will succeed in getting enough to everyone.
There are so many young people with health and wealth of good intentions.
Find one another and make it happen.
We here and there will follow this link.
Thank you for your post.

 

[Pengwuino]

It helps to get national attention. Again, it's the "out of sight, out of mind". However thousands of people suffer and die every day that could have been saved, but instead we buy those 24 packs of coke and buy $30k trucks. We know this but we continue to act this way. So we decide to not save a child every day we buy something we don't need.

It really doesn't help. A parent doesn't teach a child to eat healthy if they eat a salad for every meal for one week every year as an example. I think when you have these disasters and celebrities get all gung ho for 5 minutes and then continue on with their private jets taking them everywhere, you're basically doing the same thing. The parent thinks they have done their part and in the end, they'll have achieved nothing. Same thing here. People believe they're charitable because they were forced once a year or so to actually give $10. I bet if you had an option to give $10 to UNICEF out of your paycheck, few people would, even though that would raise probably $20+ billion every year if even half the population opted in.

And yes, none of the reasons I listed are good reasons to not give. However, they are the reasons people use. People are distrustful. To top it off, unlike say Habitat for Humanity, you can't drive by the village you helped support to make you feel like it was worth it like you could the house you helped build.

In my opinion, a society has to develop charitable habits when it comes to people outside of the US. A quick search found http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/News/2009/docs/GivingReaches300billion_06102009.pdf" stating international giving makes up only 4% of the $300 billion Americans give each year. Animal causes received 2% in relation.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

And yes, none of the reasons I listed are good reasons to not give. However, they are the reasons people use. People are distrustful. To top it off, unlike say Habitat for Humanity, you can't drive by the village you helped support to make you feel like it was worth it like you could the house you helped build.

Certainly there are many reasons why we don't give (99% indefensible). 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". I want people to take it completely literally. How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child. We are essentially murders! Does this make us bad people? We are walking past the drowning child in the lake. How do you deal with this? Candy bar vs child. Millions pick candy bar. Child dies. How does this make you feel?

 

[Kurdt]

Personally I would favour a non-interference policy in other cultures (africa, india...). They should develop and grow on their own. Admitedly a lot of them (if not all) have been directly affected by western culture in the past or at the present.

 

[Pengwuino]

Certainly there are many reasons why we don't give (99% indefensible). 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". I want people to take it completely literally. How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child. We are essentially murders! Does this make us bad people? We are walking past the drowning child in the lake. How do you deal with this? Candy bar vs child. Millions pick candy bar. Child dies. How does this make you feel?

No, we're walking past our own neighborhoods while the child drowns 5000 miles away. There are great philosophical arguments about the morality of the situation. I think it is immoral, however. You can start running into some slippery slope arguments about all of this (eg. is it immoral to let the vaccinated kid then fall victim to starvation? then is it immoral to let the vaccinated, "well" nourished kid go without at least a high school education? then is it immoral to let the kid grow up and die in tribal warfare?). Unfortunately we aren't even near any of that and I'd be happy to see the day where the morality lies with whether or not we have to educate a vaccinated, well nourished 3rd world child.

Personally I would favour a non-interference policy in other cultures (africa, india...). They should develop and grow on their own. Admitedly a lot of them (if not all) have been directly affected by western culture in the past or at the present.

Oddly enough, the cultures that were interfered with the most in the past are the ones who are doing better (all things are relative of course). If we let them to their own devices, they would probably be a few hundred years away from the level we're at, at the least.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think it is immoral, however. You can start running into some slippery slope arguments about all of this (eg. is it immoral to let the vaccinated kid then fall victim to starvation? then is it immoral to let the vaccinated, "well" nourished kid go without at least a high school education? then is it immoral to let the kid grow up and die in tribal warfare?). Unfortunately we aren't even near any of that and I'd be happy to see the day where the morality lies with whether or not we have to educate a vaccinated, well nourished 3rd world child.

In terms of this argument, I believe it rests on the notion of immediate survival. Extreme poverty is one in which a person is not meeting it's survival needs. One in which a $15 vaccine will save it's life. What happens 10 years down the road is another story. But even in your scenario, you can ask yourself the simple question. Should a savable child die tomorrow because you think it's immoral for it to grow up without a high school education?

So you admit it's immoral. Tomorrow you will likely spend some money on things you don't really need. Money that could go to a saving a child that will die if you do not help. How will you live with that? No matter the distance, that child you could have saved has died. Does that make you a bad person? (i'm not trying to badger, just trying to get interesting answers)

 

[DanP]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Disguised Marxism.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Disguised Marxism.

So what. The argument stands.

 

[Kurdt]

Oddly enough, the cultures that were interfered with the most in the past are the ones who are doing better (all things are relative of course). If we let them to their own devices, they would probably be a few hundred years away from the level we're at, at the least.

I don't see that as a reason to get involved. The governments will eventually learn to take care of their people.

 

[Pengwuino]

So you admit it's immoral. Tomorrow you will likely spend some money on things you don't really need. Money that could go to a saving a child that will die if you do not help. How will you live with that? No matter the distance, that child you could have saved has died. Does that make you a bad person? (i'm not trying to badger, just trying to get interesting answers)

No. I think whether or not a person is good or bad is a compilation of how they act throughout their entire life. It certainly is a notch on the immoral tally though. It doesn't bother me though because if you start running through these arguments, you can easily either 1) find enough reasons to make yourself out to be on the same level as Hitler or 2) marginalize everything so that it's all irrelevant. I rather not open that box.

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't see that as a reason to get involved. The governments will eventually learn to take care of their people.

Sure. That's the core of the whole idea of charity though. Even homeless people can eventually get back on their feet without the help of charity. However, morally do we really want them to have to?

 

[disregardthat]

Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

The modern western society is built upon buying non-essential items and services, if there had not been a culture for this how would be reach the level of technology and life expectancy we have today? And surely it's the state we are in now that economically allows us to help people suffering in the third world. If every dollar that would've gone to soda went to the third world, the soda industry would disappear. Same with everything else which provide that we don't need to survive. In the end, this would collapse the entire society as we know it today, and as individuals we would not have the economic freedom which allows us to donate. Hence it's absurd to call it morally wrong to spend money on non-essential items and services, for it would contradict the premise for the situation we are in that allows us to give money to the third world. There is always a "golden path", absolutism is seldom convincing.

The most effective, and in my opinion most moral, would be to affirm laws which incorporates some affordable amount of money into taxation that goes directly to organizations which help people in the third world.

 

[DanP]

So what. The argument stands.

Look, Greg, the solution is simple. Nobody forces those humans to reproduce. In fact, they shouldn't reproduce until they can afford the costs of raising a child.

But if they do, it's utterly immoral to expect the rest of the population of the planet to raise their offspring. It's the same old song, "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". Utopians which believe that humans are blank slates and hence they can be social engineered into anything.

Second, raising to status is part of the human nature. Much of the so called "displays of status" are realized through non-essential items and services. Expensive art pieces, expensive cars, expensive designer clothes, whatever you got it.

Spending on such apparently "non-essential" items fills a very specific niche in humans. They are far from being "non-essential". They are powerful signals which most definitely have a role in the polarization and hierarchic stratification of society. They have far reaching implications, which go as far as access to (more) mates. They are intrinsic part of the human psychology and neurobiology.

 

[DanP]

However, morally do we really want them to have to?

Yes. Luck helps the ones which help themselves.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The modern western society is built upon buying non-essential items and services, if there had not been a culture for this how would be reach the level of technology and life expectancy we have today? And surely it's the state we are in now that economically allows us to help people suffering in the third world. Hence it's absurd to call it morally wrong to spend money on non-essential items and services, for it would contradict the premise for the situation we are in that allows us to give money to the third world. There is always a "golden path", absolutism is seldom convincing.

We can't reach high levels of medicine and technology unless a girl buys a $400 handbag or unless a man buys a $40 steak?

I would also argue western society owes some of it's progress to the exploitation of these third world countries.

Look, Greg, the solution is simple. Nobody forces those humans to reproduce. In fact, they shouldn't reproduce until they can afford the costs of raising a child.

Education is needed, but not relevant to the argument. Are you are willing to watch the "child drown in the lake"? I think what you say is very disconnected to the actual event and situation. If you place yourself next to a child who needs a $15 vaccine to live to the next day and a movie ticket you really want to see. You would honestly choose the movie ticket?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've typed up three responses and deleted them all. Maybe I will come back and add those thoughts after I get some sleep, but I think this is a problem that all people of good conscience struggle with at some point in their life. Hopefully no one will take this as proselytizing, but this is a classic problem in Christian Theology. Just for the sake of context, I thought it might be appropriate to cite the relevant passage.

Matthew 19:16-26

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

So how do many religious people deal with this? We pray for forgiveness and buy 60" LCD TVs.

When I asked a priest about this once, his response was to lighten up and forgive myself for being human. Frankly, I never found that answer acceptable.

 

[Pengwuino]

The modern western society is built upon buying non-essential items and services, if there had not been a culture for this how would be reach the level of technology and life expectancy we have today? And surely it's the state we are in now that economically allows us to help people suffering in the third world. Hence it's absurd to call it morally wrong to spend money on non-essential items and services, for it would contradict the premise for the situation we are in that allows us to give money to the third world. There is always a "golden path", absolutism is seldom convincing.

That's interesting. By helping someone out, you deprive a company of money that deprives them of the ability to sustain/create jobs which deprives other people the luxury of being able to help others out.

This actually is something I was thinking about making a topic on. My idea was "Is it right for me to think that Americans would be better off if we weren't such poor critical thinkers when it came to scams and scam artists?". My thinking went along these lines: A scam is simply a transfer of wealth. A scam artist doesn't simply make money disappear, he'll spend it on things that go back into the economy which makes jobs etc etc for the most part. I think this is kinda along the lines of "take money from one, it takes from another which takes from another" whereas mine is "transfer money from one, it transfers to another etc. etc.". Maybe I should start that topic...

The most effective, and in my opinion most moral, would be to affirm laws which incorporates some affordable amount of money into taxation that goes directly to organizations which help people in the third world.

Doesn't this contradict your original statement though? Taxes that are directly taken out of the economy certainly would affect peoples means of providing charity.

Yes. Luck helps the ones which help themselves.

We live in a society where people would have no idea how to survive on their own. Without soup kitchens and food banks, most would die.

 

[disregardthat]

So how do many religious people deal with this? We pray for forgiveness and buy 60" LCD TVs.

When I asked a priest about this once, his response was to lighten up and forgive myself for being human. Frankly, I never found that answer acceptable.

It's time to be pragmatic and not blindly follow "ideals". What moral value is there in giving up everything you have, placing yourself in misery for others, compared to live an economically sustainable life while donating regularly for the rest of your life. First of all, you have the ability to give more money this way. Second, you don't betray your own worth for the sake of some ideal. Third, I would say it is immoral to make yourself economically dependent on others.

 

[DanP]

We live in a society where people would have no idea how to survive on their own. Without soup kitchens and food banks, most would die.

More space for You, me and Dupree :P

 

[disregardthat]

Doesn't this contradict your original statement though? Taxes that are directly taken out of the economy certainly would affect peoples means of providing charity.

The argument was that the situation that allows us to donate requires spending on non-essential items and services. However the premise is of course that we want to donate. The most moral thing is therefore to do this in the most effective way. Sustainable donation will still satisfy the premise for future donation. Call it organized charity, it has the same function as regular charity.

 

[Pengwuino]

I've typed up three responses and deleted them all. Maybe I will come back and add those thoughts after I get some sleep, but I think this is a problem that all people of good conscience struggle with at some point in their life. Hopefully no one will take this as proselytizing, but this is a classic problem in Christian Theology. Just for the sake of context, I thought it might be appropriate to cite the relevant passage.

So I'm not the only person who deleted several responses already!

So how do many religious people deal with this? We pray for forgiveness and buy 60" LCD TVs.

When I asked a priest about this once, his response was to lighten up and forgive myself for being human. Frankly, I never found that answer acceptable.

I've heard people talk about this part of The Bible. This can be interpreted in different ways. One interpretation is that materials goods are such a powerful force with some people, that given the option of eternal life in heaven or their material goods, they'll almost always choose their possessions. It can be interpreted as as a worship of things over God. The idea that you can't be rich to go to heaven contradicts 'with God all things are possible'. In fact, there was a passage cited about a very wealthy individual who was given his wealth as an act of God. So one interpretation is simply don't worship your goods.

I think that interpretation has some good meaning in this context. While I don't think it condemns someone for having a candy bar instead of giving to UNICEF, it certainly would condemn a person for NEEDING a $250,000 super-luxury car just to park in the garage for people to see.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think that interpretation has some good meaning in this context. While I don't think it condemns someone for having a candy bar instead of giving to UNICEF, it certainly would condemn a person for NEEDING a $250,000 super-luxury car just to park in the garage for people to see.

I think it's just rationalizing. I think the original argument still stands in it's ideal state. If spending $3 on a candy bar dooms a child to death by not getting a vaccine, how is that not wrong? Is it because you don't know that child? I think not being able to identify with the victim has a lot to do with it.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think it's just rationalizing. I think the original argument still stands in it's ideal state. If spending $3 on a candy bar dooms a child to death by not getting a vaccine, how is that not wrong? Is it because you don't know that child? I think not being able to identify with the victim has a lot to do with it.

I'm talking about the bible passage.

I've already said it though, it is wrong. What else do you want?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm talking about the bible passage.

I've already said it though, it is wrong. What else do you want?

What I want to know is why you don't change and how you deal with it. You said before you build some defenses, but are clearly aware of them. Being a "bad person" is ok for you? (again just trying to flesh out ideas)

 

[Pengwuino]

What I want to know is why you don't change and how to deal with it. You said before you build some defenses, but are clearly aware of them. Being a "bad person" is ok for you?

I already said I don't believe it makes me a bad person. You could run through arguments that makes every single person on this board a bad person if you use your logic. It would simply dilute what it means to be "bad".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I already said I don't believe it makes me a bad person. You could run through arguments that makes every single person on this board a bad person if you use your logic. It would simply dilute what it means to be "bad".

Look I don't want to hammer this around all day. But I think we both agree killing is bad. You agree that by choosing the $3 candy bar over saving the child is bad. And a person who repeatedly does bad things knowingly is referred to as a bad person, no?

 

[Pengwuino]

Look I don't want to hammer this around all day. But I think we both agree killing is a bad thing. You agree that by choosing the $3 candy bar over saving the child is bad. A person who repeatedly does bad things is known as a bad person, no?

So you're saying everyone is bad? Everyone who isn't an unvaccinated child in a 3rd world country that is.

 

[disregardthat]

We can't reach high levels of medicine and technology unless a girl buys a $400 handbag or unless a man buys a $40 steak?

I would also argue western society owes some of it's progress to the exploitation of these third world countries.

Greg, what is going to be produced if people only bought essential things? Essential things. This is not about $400 handbags, you are generalizing this. How will this not collapse the entire industry and hence the our entire society as we know it? How will this make us capable of donating as we do today? It is simply a non-logical position to claim the immorality of not spending every single penny you don't need to charity. What moral worth is there in an action which universalized renders us incapable of being moral?

Is it bad to contribute to society which relies on its population spending on what they don't need? I consider his position blindly idealistic.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So you're saying everyone is bad? Everyone who isn't an unvaccinated child in a 3rd world country that is.

Maybe. That's why this thread is in the Philosophy forum. :)

How will this not collapse the entire industry and hence the our entire society as we know it? How will this make us capable of donating as we do today? It is simply a non-logical position to claim the immorality of not spending every single penny you don't need to charity.

Is it bad to contribute to society which relies on its population spending on what they don't need?

Maybe we wouldn't need to donate, nor would our society collapse if we had started differently from the beginning.

Is our exact society and way of life worth 10 million children dying every year from preventable causes?