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

[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?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This is not about $400 handbags, you are generalizing this.

You are right, I am cherry picking a bit and that shows my wavering of thoughts from being practical to the ideal. But I am interested in the ideal because I think it's very compelling.

 

[DanP]

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

How comes ? Please explain.

Education is needed, but not relevant to the argument.

Im not talking about education. I am talking about the bare necessitates of life food, vaccination (else you die). Before reproducing like rabbits, those humans should think if they are able to sustain the life of their offspring until they can doit on their own.

This whole theory is a displacement of responsibility. It shifts responsibility from parents to entities which are living thousand of miles away. This guy talks about morality. He is wrong. Even if accept his theory that morale has anything to do with this, the first thing I would ask is "Is it moral to reproduce when you know your child risk perishing of famine and lack of vaccinations?"

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?

None of us can individually save the humanity. It's Utopian. If you do the math, youll see that the money spent on status is nothing but a drop in an ocean.

 

[disregardthat]

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?

You put it like as if we weren't as rich we are today the whole world could be saved. That is not how it is. Overpopulation will not be solved by collapsing rich societies or preventing them to exist. Only the presence of rich societies will enhance technology over the bounds of immediate necessity, and this is e.g. essential to solve future problems concerning local and global climate changes which will make more people suffer in the future. As constant water supply.

Take the example of airplanes. How would they come into being in a world where no interest were given to ideas like this? Today we rely on them to effectively give starving populations food to survive. I consider it absurd to say it's effectively immoral to deny society the moral freedom to care about these things. A consequencialist argument gets a consequencialist reply.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

None of us can individually save the humanity. It's Utopian. If you do the math, youll see that the money spent on status is nothing but a drop in an ocean.

You make some requests I may answer tomorrow, it's so late now. But... the ideal is not about saving humanity. It's about saving one child when making a decision to buy something you don't need. So say, what does it matter, we can't save them all. But no matter what poor choices their parents made, they are here now and your decision matters to that one child. You may condemn that child now and rationalize the decision, but I think you'd choose differently if you knew that child.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Take the example of airplanes. How would they come into being in a world where no interest were given to ideas like this? Today we rely on them to effectively give starving populations food to survive. I consider it absurd to say it's effectively immoral to deny society the moral freedom to care about these things.

I don't see how invention and ambition are incompatible with the argument.

 

[DanP]

So say, what does it matter, we can't save them all. But no matter what poor choices their parents made, they are here now and your decision matters to that one child.

But it does not solves the underlying problem. That being, tomorrow another one of those children will be brought to life by irresponsible parents. That a new entity will need to be saved. This kind of help will amount at nothing, but to create a vicious cycle .

No, this is not the solution.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, this is not the solution.

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

 

[disregardthat]

I don't see how invention and ambition are incompatible with the argument.

The point is that no funding would be given to inventing new things such as air-planes. It is non-essential.

 

[DanP]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child with each spending decision.

It would be interesting to see how many lives he saved :P Or what he did with they money he got for publishing this book. Interesting, but irrelevant.

But yeah, IMO this guy doesn't understand the first thing about human nature, and the importance of reaching and displaying status signals in any social group whatsoever. It's an evolved behavior, probably going on the lines of a Zahavian handicap, and its adaptive. Not that you can't save a child and make that a Zahavian peacock tail, that works too, but as I said, expecting someone to do this is just a shift of responsibility.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh this is in the philosophy forum... no wonder it felt weird in here.

And by the way, there have been numbers thrown about as to how much it would cost per year to reasonably vaccinate every child and give every country an acceptable standard of water and basic necessities like that. The conclusion was that you're not going to be talking about small deviations from our "exact way of life".

Also, DanP, you have to remember that the success of a family in the poorest nations, as it has always been for every primitive culture, is a consequence of how many kids they can produce. It's ALL manual labor, it's not like here where we have welfare systems to make sure kids don't starve and have their vaccinations. You actually need to be a quite successful civilization before the idea flips where fewer children means higher success.

 

[Pengwuino]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

You also must realize that as to the analogy of the drowning child, sure you can save him. However, what if tomorrow he's stuck in a burning building? Then the next day he's being attacked by a dog. Are you a good person to save him from drowning but not from the burning building? By his argument, no, you're pretty much screwed, everyone is a bad person always.

Then the word "bad" becomes meaningless.

 

[DanP]

Also, DanP, you have to remember that the success of a family in the poorest nations, as it has always been for every primitive culture, is a consequence of how many kids they can produce. It's ALL manual labor, it's not like here where we have welfare systems to make sure kids don't starve and have their vaccinations. You actually need to be a quite successful civilization before the idea flips where fewer children means higher success.

Im not arguing economics here. I am arguing that calling status seeking behaviors immoral is turning the blind eye to the realities of life. And if this whole issue have anything to do with moral cognition, it's way more immoral to bring childs to life only to make them work for your family.

In fact, I don't believe this has anything to do with morality. Both behaviors are amoral in my eyes.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The point is that no funding would be given to inventing new things such as air-planes. It is non-essential.

There are likely a few essential reasons for building planes, but overall maybe we wouldn't need planes to give them food if we had this mentality from the start. The Zulu were just fine until the Dutch or whomever came along.

It would be interesting to see how many lives he saved :P Or what he did with they money he got for publishing this book. Interesting, but irrelevant.

He talks about it. I think he donates around 70%.

But yeah, IMO this guy doesn't understand the first thing about human nature, and the importance of reaching and displaying status signals in any social group whatsoever. It's an evolved behavior, probably going on the lines of a Zahavian handicap, and its adaptive. Not that you can't save a child and make that a Zahavian peacock tail, that works too, but as I said, expecting someone to do this is just a shift or responsibility.

No, he does. This is one small argument he makes on the first page. The next couple hundred pages he breaks everything down and talks in a practical and realistic way. I wanted to post this because the ideal is compelling and hard to dismiss if you take it as it is.

Stomping on a guys head to take over their tribe was also evolved behavior, but we have the ability to keep evolving and improving.

 

[DanP]

Stomping on a guys head to take over their tribe was also evolved behavior, but we have the ability to keep evolving and improving.

You think we evolved out of this ? IMO its enough to look at any electoral processes to see that we still stomp on/over each other heads to take over the tribe. But we learned to display our aggressiveness appropriate to the social context. Who was the one who put targeting crosses over Giffords's head , to talk just about one of the latest development in the wake of Tucson shootings ?

 

[DanP]

But I think we both agree killing is bad.

Killing is amoral IMO.

Is the social context of killing which makes you either look like a hero,a recipient of a congress medal or makes you an outcast hunted by law enforcement for confinement and execution.

 

[Reshma]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

My parents did experience borderline poverty back in the days when India was among the poorest of the nations. As someone from a developing nation, I can very well understand and relate to the problems of severe deprivation of food and medicines. I have not read Singer's book, but I do agree with one thing that one can at least cut back on some unnecessary luxury to give someone a necessary essential.

This person came to my mind when I read this thread:


Whenever I see eating competitions akin to "Man versus food" on international channels, somehow it makes my stomach churn seeing the amount of food being wasted.

 

[DanP]

but I do agree with one thing that one can at least cut back on some unnecessary luxury to give someone a necessary essential.

Why ? Explain to me why do you consider yourself or others so special that you are entitled to receive the necessities of life from the wealth of other persons ? How can you expect to be fed by others ?

You are not special by any means whatsoever. Nobody is. Nobody owes you nothing. If we want to give, we give because we want so. Not because you believe you have the right to live on my expense, and think I should drive a cheaper car.

P.S

The you in this post was used "generically" to indicate another party, the generic "you". It is not a reference to the poster and should not be interpreted as a personal attack.

 

[Reshma]

Why ? Explain to me why do you consider yourself or others so special that you are entitled to receive the necessities of life from the wealth of other persons ? How can you expect to be fed by others ?

You are not special by any means whatsoever. Nobody is. Nobody owes you nothing. If we want to give, we give because we want so. Not because you believe you have the right to live on my expense, and think I should drive a cheaper car.

P.S

The you in this post was used "generically" to indicate another party, the generic "you". It is not a reference to the poster and should not be interpreted as a personal attack.

You misunderstood what I was trying to convey. Living an entire life on charity is a bad idea but I am referring to the ones who cannot afford the bare necessities. In such case, it is necessary for the well-off ones to intervene.

I agree, no one is under an obligation to give charity to someone, but when one can cut back on many unnecessary spendings (like someone having 2 TVs when needs only one, taking an SUV alone to work when one can carpool), it can go a long way in making resources available for others.

 

[DanP]

You misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

I don't think I misunderstood.

Living an entire life on charity is a bad idea but I am referring to the ones who cannot afford the bare necessities. In such case, it is necessary for the well-off ones to intervene.

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 ?

I agree, no one is under an obligation to give charity to someone, but when one can cut back on many unnecessary spendings (like someone having 2 TVs when needs only one, taking an SUV alone to work when one can carpool), it can go a long way in making resources available for others.

Please. I like driving SUVs in mountains. I like driving German cars in the city. I love them.
Due to my somehow eclectic interests, and my interest in wilderness, I consider almost a necessity to own two types of cars. One for the mountains, one for the city.

Why should I carpool ? To depend on others ? I value my personal freedom too much to depend on the car of X or Y. I like to drive alone or with a women in my right. Its funny and relaxing. I don't want to listen to idiotic chit chat of my coworkers when I drive. And this is just a regeneration benefit I derive from it, never-mind the raw utility of disposing at will of a mean of transportation.

it can go a long way in making resources available for others.

It can, but nobody should expect others to doit. You shouldn't think that "at least X should give something of his surplus to others". Nobody is under obligation to share his resources with anyone , save for taxes. You should be grateful if he does, but you shouldn't think that he has too, or that's the least thing she/he can do.

 

[Reshma]

Please. I like driving SUVs in mountains. I like driving German cars in the city. I love them.
Due to my somehow eclectic interests, and my interest in wilderness, I consider almost a necessity to own two types of cars. One for the mountains, one for the city.

Why should I carpool ? To depend on others ? I value my personal freedom too much to depend on the car of X or Y. I like to drive alone or with a women in my right. Its funny and relaxing. I don't want to listen to idiotic chit chat of my coworkers when I drive. And this is just a regeneration benefit I derive from it, never-mind the raw utility of disposing at will of a mean of transportation.

Off-topic:
I live in one of the most populated cities in the world. I have my private vehicle, but I recently started taking the train to work, because it saves a lot of fuel expenses and I reach my work place faster instead of being stuck in traffic. If carpooling mitigates the traffic situation I would rather put up with annoying co-passengers than being stranded for longer hours in traffic jams.

Charity is not something only a rich person can do. I don't expect a rich first world nation to solve the problems happening on my streets. Apart from situations of natural disasters, it is up to local communities and people (including me) to improve situations around them.

 

[DanP]

Off-topic:
I live in one of the most populated cities in the world. I have my private vehicle, but I recently started taking the train to work, because it saves a lot of fuel expenses and I reach my work place faster instead of being stuck in traffic.

Yes, but the reason of this is because you fulfill a necessity for yourself. You save money for fuel which you will spend on other things and the train gets you in time at work :P

If carpooling mitigates the traffic situation I would rather put up annoying co-passengers by than being stranded for hours in traffic jams.

How can carpooling mitigate the traffic situation ? It's not like the number of passengers in your car will have any influence whatsoever on the final state of traffic.

What happens in reality is an equilibrium situation. As more and more ppl will carpool, the roads will become free enough that more and more ppl will be find attractive to drive comfortably on the road alone. In reality you will not see any improvement in traffic, what you will see it's an equilibrium which is probably already in place.

 

[K Rool]

Greg, you're just guilt tripping everyone. People are too lazy or don't care. It's that simple.

 

[akd_dka]

I am also from India . And I feel that the apathy shown by well-to-do people(myself included) from India towards the poor and downtrodden is shocking . It isn't even a case of "out of sight out of mind" for us Indians. We are quite desensitized to the poverty. So in that way we are more guilty than non-Indians. I hope I may contribute at least something to the society when I start earning my self.

@Reshma , great video.
It may well be argued that giving bread earning capacity than giving bread is more noble.
But still giving bread is better than doing nothing. That guy is real superhero , as the video title suggests. And in some cases as in that video giving bread can be a life saver .

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 ?

It can, but nobody should expect others to doit. You shouldn't think that "at least X should give something of his surplus to others". Nobody is under obligation to share his resources with anyone , save for taxes. You should be grateful if he does, but you shouldn't think that he has too, or that's the least thing she/he can do.

It is not at all necessary. And the "well-off" ones are under no obligations. If they feel like donating only then, they should.
If a person is living a straight and non-corrupt life he is doing quite well.

In India , corruption is a bigger problem than people not doing charity.

 

[Lacy33]

Greg, you're just guilt tripping everyone. People are too lazy or don't care. It's that simple.

Ah, don't count me in on this one K Rool. I may be simple and I may be real lazy but not so much I don't care.

I am totally this thing went the distance without a rally to a cause. Any flippin cause.
Seems like all the people who really died trying to get the attention of any amount of people to care just wasted themselves for nothing if it ends like this.
Nobody is guilt tripping anyone.
some people are just sayin!

Now I am going to look for you to be my friend. :!) Here I come...

 

[DanP]

Seems like all the people who really died trying to get the attention of any amount of people to care just wasted themselves for nothing if it ends like this.

Who died trying ?