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

[akd_dka]

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.

A very indirect causal link exists between a person buying an expensive high heels and a child not getting money for a vaccine. So it is difficult to prove that it is a wrong choice. For instance , what if the company from which you buy an expensive high heels has an owner who is philanthropic like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. So ultimately the money may go to the poor child .

Of course , if a person does decide on not buying the shoes and spending money on donations it is a noble choice . But we can't go on incriminating a person who chooses not to do so.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

A very indirect causal link exists between a person buying an expensive high heels and a child not getting money for a vaccine.

Seems pretty clear to me. Only casual if you are lazy and can be allow yourself to be disconnected by the distance factor.

So it is difficult to prove that it is a wrong choice. For instance , what if the company from which you buy an expensive high heels has an owner who is philanthropic like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. So ultimately the money may go to the poor child.

We're talking fractions of a penny to the dollar. Far from compelling.

Of course , if a person does decide on not buying the shoes and spending money on donations it is a noble choice . But we can't go on incriminating a person who chooses not to do so.

If a person has the power to save a child and chooses not to. We can't incriminate them?

 

[DanP]

You telling me that our society disagrees that we should help someone in need even if it doesn't put us out much? That is insane.

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

It doesn't matter what they say. They could say simply try to live up to what isthe perceived expected answer to this test. And I am pretty sure that all would come up with answers which do look good :P They would gladly lie just to look good or to avoid conflict, or to satisfy what they think is the answer the experimentalist expect from them

What matters is that out in the wild, in our society, the norm is not enforced. Look, as you said, ppl prefer iPhones instead of donating to Unicef. This is the status quo in your society and in mine.

 

[akd_dka]

Seems pretty clear to me. Only casual if you are lazy and can be allow yourself to be disconnected by the distance factor.

I meant causal not casual.(I apologise if it was a typo from your side.)

I personally feel, that we should strive to do donations on a regular basis and should avoid unnecessary luxuries and wastages. But we can only hope that others learn from our example.

"Be the change you want to see in the world " should be our guiding light.

If a person has the power to save a child and chooses not to. We can't incriminate them?

No . We can't incriminate that person. And this is valid even in the case where a person choses not to save a child drowning in sea water. We can say that the person lacks courage to do so or is apathetic. But I think, lacking courage or being apathetic is not the same as being immoral.
However a person who throws a child in sea water willfully is an immoral person.

 

[cobalt124]

Very interesting thread. I haven't read the book, but have heard about the case made. Apologies, I've spent a long time on

this and I'm not completely happy with it, some bits have gone missing, but I'm posting it anyway. Don't want to make waves

here, just asking questions.

Greg Bernhardt:
"...any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong...we all live immorally..."

He may have a point, based on the example given.

Pengwuino:
"...Human nature..."

I don't think it is. It looks more like a societal based choice. I also have my doubts about organized donation giving and

whether it actually helps in the long term, because I think for the most part it is done for the wrong reasons. I don't for

the most part.

Lacy33:
"...Greg...you are a dooer of good deeds. You have helped a lot..."

I can see this is true without even knowing the details.

Greg Bernhardt
"...think about a child we could vaccinate when we reach for soda..."

I believe that the solution would rest with the individual.

"...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 are sheep and we don't care.

Lacy33
"...in spite of the confusion and materialistic world your senior generations have left you..."

That is a major part of the problem here.

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

Thinking about it, I don't feel good, which is why I don't think about it. I've always felt it was true, and never acted on

that feeling.

DanP
"Disguised Marxism"

Some of the things Marx said may apply in a positive way here. Utopias and social engineering do not work. I think Marx had

something evolutionary rather than revolutionary in mind, and for it to work the seed for this evolution would have to be on

fertile ground, rather than on the rocky ground with the weeds, the latter of which IMO is closer to our current situation.

DanP
"...raising to status is part of the human nature...which go as far as access to (more) mates. They are intrinsic part of the

human psychology and neurobiology..."

Isn't this a societal based choice as well? Saying that I am nowhere near qualified to comment on any science that may refute

this.

Ivan Seeking
"Matthew 19:16-26 "

My take is: The world is wrong and the rich man is unwilling to do anything about it, but he is unhappy with this. I don't

wan't to be seen as preaching, I think there is a solution that is secular, concrete, and can work.

Jarle
"...It's time to be pragmatic and not blindly follow "ideals"..."

It doesn't have to be idealistic. Its a matter of changing what is wrong and keeping what is right at the individual level.

Individuals consume and the effects are felt worldwide. Why can't individuals help each other, and the effects are felt

worldwide?

"...giving up everything you have, placing yourself in misery for others..."

If you feel it would put you in misery, it would fail.

"...you have the ability to give more money this way..."

Why is it only money that has to be given? (again neutral question).

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

Not for everybody. But the attention in this discussion seems to be going to the people that least need the attention.

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

Thats the question to ask. And the (unfortunate) resounding answer in words and actions (including my actions) is yes. The

price is worth paying and the negative consequences for both the starving and the society don't matter.

...Is it moral to reproduce...

"It's human nature."

Jarle?
"...None of us can individually save the humanity..."

But maybe a lot of individuals acting individually can.

Greg Bernhardt
"... the ideal is not about saving humanity. It's about saving one child when making a decision to buy something you don't

need..."

And if many individuals do it, the consequences on mankind are improved.

DanP
"...Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene?..."

There is no obligation. Only choice.

Reshma:
"...it is up to local communities and people (including me) to improve situations around them..."

I share this sentiment. The more of it the better.

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

He's asking for an honest answer to honest questions IMO, without judging any answers he gets.

DanP
Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
"...The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in

food industry..."

And a denial of any resposibility by the individual. You trust the motives of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the

GM Food industry?

Greg Bernhardt
"...This is about personal responsibility..."

Exactly.

Greg Bernhardt
"...Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable?..."

No reason except for choice.

DanP
...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"...

Just because things happen as they do, doesn't mean they have to happen like that. I thought this was about the good of

individuals, not the species.

DanP?
...yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure...

Are you sure you are not doing this already? (neutral question)

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

Then maybe giving billions and billions and billions isn't the answer to the problem. More volunteers?

 

[DanP]

I think Marx had something evolutionary rather than revolutionary in mind, and for it to work the seed for this evolution would have to be on fertile ground, rather than on the rocky ground with the weeds, the latter of which IMO is closer to our current situation.

Not really. Such a stance is closer to social democracy. Ideologies steaming from Marxism all asked for revolutionary changes.

Isn't this a societal based choice as well? Saying that I am nowhere near qualified to comment on any science that may refute this.

Human psychology include the so called "social psychology". Yes, society does modulate status seeking behaviors.

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

Thats the question to ask. And the (unfortunate) resounding answer in words and actions (including my actions) is yes. The price is worth paying and the negative consequences for both the starving and the society don't matter.

We wage wars everywhere to protect our society, the western way of life, the value of democracy. It seems that our society thinks is well worth killing, causing distress, refugees, others for those abstract concepts

...Is it moral to reproduce...

"It's human nature."

So it is raising to status.

DanP
"...Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene?..."
There is no obligation. Only choice.

This is what you think. A good point of view. Others in this thread already expressed they beleif that yes " the well-off should at least do ... x or y". This is the root of all evil, the way to Marxism.

DanP
Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
"...The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in

food industry..."

And a denial of any resposibility by the individual. You trust the motives of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the

GM Food industry?

Frankly I don't care about their motives too much. They have their agenda, I have mine.
And really, it's not my responsibility to help anyone. I doit if I want, as you seem to have agreed earlier, is a freaking personal choice. But now, several paragraphs later, you seem to have shifted your position, and you insist that personal responsibility exists. Well, which one fo those two going to be ?

Greg Bernhardt
"...This is about personal responsibility..."

Exactly.

It;s either a choice, an elective , either a responsibility. Make up your mind on this pls.

Greg Bernhardt
"...Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable?..."

No reason except for choice.

In the end, this can't result in a ESS. Such a society would be extremely vulnerable to profoundly egoistical humans, who would trive on the expense of others. They would quickly take over, till the population would end in a ESS.

DanP
...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"...

Just because things happen as they do, doesn't mean they have to happen like that. I thought this was about the good of individuals, not the species.

Individuals from very distant groups, supporting them pretty much equals "for the good of the species".

Just because the things could have happened differently, doesn't mean that they did :P The reality is pretty much the one you have, not what it could have been if and if anf if

...yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure...

Are you sure you are not doing this already? (neutral question)

Yes I am. There is no social pressure on me from any in-groups that I donate. No norms "tho shalt donate" to which I would feel the need to conform to protect my status in my group.

 

[waht]

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

The middle class doesn't get the iphone out of thin air, but it works its a$$ off for it. If you give it away, along with all other unnecessary items to the point of bare necessities, you openly become an abject slave who works hard for other people, often sacrificing things you love, and spending less time with your family, eating less healthy foods, opting for a cheaper health insurance, you thereby become poorer and taking your loved ones with you.

The collective such effort of the US middle class would hardly make a dent in world's poverty. The real wealth of the US lies in natural resources, corporations, investments, real estate, rich people, highly skilled workforce etc. That's not something you can control or transfer so easily. In fact no one can. It is a emergent system out of a good economy.

Before the industrial revolution, the whole world was in poverty. Average human life span in Europe was 40 years. And Singer wants to go that way, he favors a backward progress towards a pre-industrial era in hopes of solving the world poverty.

 

[JDStupi]

I just have comments on the subject and not so much a general position. First I'd like to say that Albert Camus's "The Plague" deals heavily with the concepts of guilt and social responsibility from both a secular and, in the form of a Christian priest, a Christian perspective. The book has individuals that run the gamut of opinions, from those who help and volunteer, to those who exploit the situation.
I'd also like to say that this essentially reads like a classic Nietzschean "Morality of the strong vs Morality of the weak argument"...
And finally, I know DanP, you said that you werenn't endorsing the argument/suggestion made in post number 73, so I'm not directing this directly toward you or anyone just saying that I usually disagree with such sociobiological "explanations" for moral behavior, largely because of the almost fatalistic nature of it...It appeals to a shallow and premature understanding of nature vs nurture and attributes any characteristics to some combination of genetics and environment, but the problem is, is that it is pseudo-scientific. It uses scientific claims, but the idea itself is inherently non-falsifiable. There doesn't exist a way to test for the individual's specific mixture of genetics/environment/ personal history in order to come to a conclusion regarding the situation, and then from this people proclaim a moral rationilization based on an inadequate understanding of brain science. Certainly some people have certain proclivities, but we do not understand the brain basis of "free-will" enough in order to say from a scientific point of view, that this is the case. that said, we do have many examples from history of individuals who have overcome through discpline and a belief, and the idea that "they were special" seems to take responsibility off of the individual.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What matters is that out in the wild, in our society, the norm is not enforced. Look, as you said, ppl prefer iPhones instead of donating to Unicef. This is the status quo in your society and in mine.

Seemingly and I am arguing that is wrong.

No . We can't incriminate that person. And this is valid even in the case where a person choses not to save a child drowning in sea water. We can say that the person lacks courage to do so or is apathetic. But I think, lacking courage or being apathetic is not the same as being immoral.
However a person who throws a child in sea water willfully is an immoral person.

Very interesting! However if the person genuinely "freezes up" and panics at the sight of a child drowning, thus being unable to help, that is different. That person no longer has the choice. But if a perfectly able person walks by a drowning child, shrugs and heads for the local tavern for a brew, that is immoral. That is what I am talking about.

The middle class doesn't get the iphone out of thin air, but it works its a$$ off for it. If you give it away, along with all other unnecessary items to the point of bare necessities, you openly become an abject slave who works hard for other people, often sacrificing things you love, and spending less time with your family, eating less healthy foods, opting for a cheaper health insurance, you thereby become poorer and taking your loved ones with you.

Sure, but how much a person works makes no difference to the argument. Say on friday upon receiving their payment check a person is shown an iphone and sick child desperately in need of a vaccine. If the person takes the iphone and the child dies, how is that not wrong? If there was this option in some game show there would be massive societal outcry and yet it happens every day in the shadows.

The collective such effort of the US middle class would hardly make a dent in world's poverty. The real wealth of the US lies in natural resources, corporations, investments, real estate, rich people, highly skilled workforce etc. That's not something you can control or transfer so easily. In fact no one can. It is a emergent system out of a good economy.

I don't have any exact figures, but there are roughly 160 million middle class. If each gave only $100 a year, that is a lot of vaccines. But regardless, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, it's not about a global comprehensive solution. It's save one worthwhile life at a time when making spending choices.

Before the industrial revolution, the whole world was in poverty. Average human life span in Europe was 40 years. And Singer wants to go that way, he favors a backward progress towards a pre-industrial era in hopes of solving the world poverty.

Maybe you know Singer more than I, but I get the feeling he doesn't agree with your assertion from reading his book. We can have our societal wonders and still save lives with our better spending choices.

 

[DanP]

It uses scientific claims, but the idea itself is inherently non-falsifiable. There doesn't exist a way to test for the individual's specific mixture of genetics/environment/ personal history in order to come to a conclusion regarding the situation, and then from this people proclaim a moral rationilization based on an inadequate understanding of brain science. Certainly some people have certain proclivities, but we do not understand the brain basis of "free-will" enough in order to say from a scientific point of view, that this is the case. that said, we do have many examples from history of individuals who have overcome through discpline and a belief, and the idea that "they were special" seems to take responsibility off of the individual.

It is not such a disaster as you say. There is strong scientific evidence that expression of certain genes and the regulation of this expression modulates behavior. There are hundreds of studies done on this. Also good studies emerging lately from the field of behavioral genetics. And a lot of great studies in social psychology which show how many social factors and social cognition modulates behaviors.

I don't proclaim any morality steaming from biology and evolution. I claim the ultimate amorality of any such behavior. Humans are the most genetically indeterminate creature which walked the earth. Yet there are a lot of genetic propensities in each of us.

 

[waht]

Sure, but how much a person works makes no difference to the argument. Say on friday upon receiving their payment check a person is shown an iphone and sick child desperately in need of a vaccine. If the person takes the iphone and the child dies, how is that not wrong? If there was this option in some game show there would be massive societal outcry and yet it happens every day in the shadows.

Suppose you give it away and save a child. There is billions more to be saved. Are you going to be giving up your paycheck for the rest of your life?First in the OP, Singer states that any financial action used to purchase unnecessary items to survival is immoral in light of the fact that there are impoverished people. Therefore by the definition of this statement it follows that in order become moral one has to give away all of your wealth to charity. Then Singer states that it doesn't hurt to spend $5 a month on charity, and most people would do it.

Where does such wide disparity in argument come from? Between giving up all of your wealth and $5 a month? No matter what action you take, you will always be immoral according to Singer because it's unrealistic for anyone to give up all of their wealth.

The US government gives lots of financial aide to poor countries. Where did that money come from? through taxes everyone pays.

I don't have any exact figures, but there are roughly 160 million middle class. If each gave only $100 a year, that is a lot of vaccines. But regardless, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, it's not about a global comprehensive solution. It's save one worthwhile life at a time when making spending choices.

That would make 1.6 billion a year from the middle class.

Look at the list of top US charities:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html

Forty American billionaires have pledged at least half of their wealth to charitable causes – a combined value of at least $125 billion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2...ledge-125-billion-to-Bill-Gates-charity-drive

Maybe you know Singer more than I, but I get the feeling he doesn't agree with your assertion from reading his book. We can have our societal wonders and still save lives with our better spending choices.

I've read the 'Animal Liberation' and as a result I didn't want read any more of the author. Might as well be a vegetarian.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Suppose you give it away and save a child. There is billions more to be saved. Are you going to be giving up your paycheck for the rest of your life?

If it meets the second premise of the argument, why not.

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.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3088238&postcount=75

Where does such wide disparity in tone come from? Between giving up all of your wealth and $5 a month? No matter what action you take, you will always be immoral according to Singer.

Know that I haven't quoted Singer anywhere and I fully acknowledge I've likely butchered his ideas :D The disparity is because there is an ideal version and a realistic version. The ideal is the OP which says we should donate all non-essential money. The realistic says we need to simply weigh our spending choices better and more often opt to donate instead of buying something we really don't need.

That would make 1.6 billion a year from the middle class.

Look at the list of top US charities:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html

1.6 billion sounds great. Lots of vaccines. Would help lots of people. I know what you are trying to say, but remember no matter how little impact this makes relatively it still matters to those who it does help. This is a moral argument.

So billionaires are donating a percentage of their wealth. Why doesn't everyone? Keyword is percentage.

 

[akd_dka]

. But if a perfectly able person walks by a drowning child, shrugs and heads for the local tavern for a brew, that is immoral. That is what I am talking about.

Are you sure we should call that immoral and not apathetic ?
This is important issue. Cause I think the society by and large is apathetic and not immoral.
It would be a very strict yardstick to call it immoral.

Anyways ,without fussing over what's immoral and what's apathetic, I think books like "The Life you Can save" carry an important message. And I certainly hope it brings about appreciable social change.
Most of the times people don't do charity is because the "figurative drowning child" is not in front of their eyes.But books such as these help bring that child in plain view.

People like Bill Gates are coming forward and donating sizeable amounts. This is surely a source of inspiration. I am from India , and the trend is beginning amongst rich people here also. Mr Azim Premji has pledged 2 billion dollars for philanthropy.

I hope I can contribute my bit when I start earning my own money.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Are you sure we should call that immoral and not apathetic ?
This is important issue. Cause I think the society by and large is apathetic and not immoral.
It would be a very strict yardstick to call it immoral.

I kinda get what you are saying, but by definition apathy is "an absence of emotion or enthusiasm". So to me a person should still know saving the child is right even if they are apathetic. So they are both immoral and apathetic. Immoral that they don't save the child and apathetic that they don't care about the situation.

 

[DanP]

I

So billionaires are donating a percentage of their wealth. Why doesn't everyone? Keyword is percentage.

In a word, costs to the helper. Relative costs to self. It's easier to donate when you have garbageloads of money, let's say 10% of that income, which btw, is tax deductible in most tax systems, then to donate when you are a middle class family which is better off "donating" that 10% to the college fond of the kids, for example. When education costs hundreds of thousands in dollars, it;s a very natural behavior to think first and foremost to your kin.

To come around this issue, Singer proposes that humans should cut back on status items, but what he doesn't see is that extremely few humans will follow his advice. Status is simply too important in this world, and is not as Singer says "unnecessary".

Then there is diffusion of responsibility. Even if we accept that humans are responsible for the life of someone thousand of miles away (theory which I don accept), you face a very high level of diffusion of this responsibility in society. You can see this in cases where a criminal act takes place on streets and nobody does anything. Besides obvious cases like fear, when you hear someone screaming "Help me" the impact of the request is more diffused when more humans are present at scene. Help me who ? (This si called bystander effect in social psychology, and the recommendation made is that a victim in such conditions always make the request explicit and personal, such as "You man, there, in the blue shirt, please help me" )

Also, norms of social justice, equity, reciprocity, social repsonsability, seemingly operates very well when you relate to your in-groups, but are not so powerful when applied to out-groups.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

In a word, costs to the helper. Relative costs to self. It's easier to donate when you have garbageloads of money

I'm not suggesting across the board percentage. Find one that works for you. Maybe it's 1%.

To come around this issue, Singer proposes that humans should cut back on status items, but what he doesn't see is that extremely few humans will follow his advice. Status is simply too important in this world, and is not as Singer says "unnecessary".

I fail to see how status is inherently essential to life. Either way, I agree, we think it's important. However that doesn't make it right. That is what I am trying to get after.

Then there is diffusion of responsibility.

DanP you keep offering me reasons why we don't give more. I know the reasons why and very very very few are reasonable. Certainly diffusion of responsibility is not a valid excuse to avoid giving.

 

[waht]

Know that I haven't quoted Singer anywhere and I fully acknowledge I've likely butchered his ideas :D The disparity is because there is an ideal version and a realistic version. The ideal is the OP which says we should donate all non-essential money. The realistic says we need to simply weigh our spending choices better and more often opt to donate instead of buying something we really don't need.

I know that Singer could make such a statement.

1.6 billion sounds great. Lots of vaccines. Would help lots of people. I know what you are trying to say, but remember no matter how little impact this makes relatively it still matters to those who it does help. This is a moral argument.

This is a nice statement, immune from any criticism of helping a fellow human being in need. But unfortunately this is an ideal case. The reality is unforgiving. Charities get abused, both by the people who run them and by the people who get help from them. Often funds go into a black hole.

People in poverty are uneducated, women are oppressed, superstition and religion is strong, gangs are rampant who wield power and control, racism and ethnic hate of a local neighbor or tribe is strong as well, and often has been for generations.

As a result choices these people make to improve their lives are not what we want.

For example, there are lots of cases where the poor refused vaccines on religious grounds, and many people died as a result. There are cases where one group of people was helped, they attack and killed other group of people.

Also Christianity has pretty much a monopoly on Charity donated from the west. They help the poor, but at a cost of spreading Christianity, and indoctrinating the poor with their faith. Mother Theresa abused charities like that. She not only financed a huge network of Christian seminaries around the world, but actively opposed condoms, and artificial contraceptives which helped spread diseases, and infected and killed lots of people throughout her life, and beyond. Same goes with the Popes who take the same stance.

So while I'm for charities, I'm also for overhauling the current system, so that people who really need it can get it.

 

[DanP]

I'm not suggesting across the board percentage. Find one that works for you. Maybe it's 1%.

I direct a small part of my taxes to non-profit charitable organizations. We have this possibility in our tax system. That works for me.

I fail to see how status is inherently essential to life. Either way, I agree, we think it's important. However that doesn't make it right. That is what I am trying to get after.

Nothing is inherently essential to life, except nutrition, water, breathing gases, and protection from environment and competing groups. pf.com is not essential to life. Our computers are not essential to life. Our schools and our education are not inherently essential to life. Planes, trains, cars, not inherently essential. Science, not inherently essential.

But I urge you to look at the problem of status from a different point of view. Statistically, having a high social status, and being in a dominant position in a social hierarchy minimizes social stress. Chronic exposure to stress is detrimental to health. It's reasonably well studied scientifically that glucocorticosteroids modulate the immune function and down-regulate it. Thats pretty interesting. While status may not be inherently essential to life, it may very well be the key to live with lower levels of stress than others which are lower in the hierarchy, enjoy a better health, and an overall higher quality of life. And about whatever status seeking behaviors are right or wrong. They are amoral. Yes status is important. That doesn't make it right, you say. But also doesn't make it wrong , I say.

DanP you keep offering me reasons why we don't give more. I know the reasons why and very very very few are reasonable. Certainly diffusion of responsibility is not a valid excuse to avoid giving.

In not offering an excuse here. I state a fact reasonably well studied in social psychology. If I could poof my fingers and magically all humans would be free of any cognitive biases whatsoever, then it would be an excuse. Greg, social forces are incredibly powerful. When responsibility is diffused, motivation to behave in a certain pattern becomes so weak that it's easily out-competed by whatever else you can do with those money. Like, buying an i-phone. At least having a new toy will activate your dopamine system for some brief moments. Sad, but true.

 

[DanP]

I have a question too, since I put too few in this thread.

Greg, what do you think, what demon makes the two of us spend brain power and time on a debate in pf.com and why aint we out there now to help old ladies cross the streets or whatever else ?

 

[ThomasT]

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.

P3 is an invalid, or at least questionable, assumption.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

P3 is an invalid, or at least questionable, assumption.

Great, tell me how.

This website lists some great charities doing great work
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

 

[ThomasT]

Great, tell me how.

This website lists some great charities doing great work
http://www.charitynavigator.org/

There's no way to track your contribution.

Edit: You, vis Singer, are assuming that it's within a person's power to save the life of a child on the other side of the world. But it isn't, unless the person has the means to directly affect that.

These are global-scale problems that require national and international governmental actions. They're not problems that will be solved by a few aid agencies whether millions of middle class Americans contribute to those agencies or not.

The 'moral' action Singer is advocating (donation instead of candy bar) is not only not a moral requirement, but it also takes focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution. Civic actions that change governments and hence policies.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There's no way to track your contribution.

I think you're trying to assert the possibility that every payment goes to administrative expenses? There will always be some admin expenses. If that is the case then your money is clearing the way for someone elses money to directly help save a child. Still seems worthwhile to me.

 

[ThomasT]

I think you're trying to assert the possibility that every payment goes to administrative expenses? There will always be some admin expenses. If that is the case then your money is clearing the way for someone elses money to directly help save a child. Still seems worthwhile to me.

Not exactly. I edited my previous post. Here it is:

You, vis Singer and your logical argument, are assuming that it's within a person's power to save the life of a child on the other side of the world. But it isn't, unless the person has the means to directly affect that.

These are global-scale problems that require national and international governmental actions. They're not problems that will be solved by a few aid agencies whether millions of middle class Americans contribute to those agencies or not.

The 'moral' action Singer is advocating (donation instead of candy bar) is not only not a moral requirement, but it also takes focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution. Civic actions that change governments and hence policies.

 

[Andre]

That's indeed a major problem, http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/how-corrupt-is-the-world-food-program.

Obviously a charity organisation cost money to run. But how to prevent that the support is not about the poor of the rich countries giving to the rich of the poor countries?

 

[DanP]

Not exactly. I edited my previous post. Here it is:

You, vis Singer and your logical argument, are assuming that it's within a person's power to save the life of a child on the other side of the world. But it isn't, unless the person has the means to directly affect that.

Yes, obviously, if you want to boost that **you** saved a life, you better go there in the middle dark Africa and do it, up close and personal. There is quite a lot of assumption in "giving away 15 dollars equates with saving a life". Giving away 15 USD is nothing else than giving away 15USD. Is is not saving a life. So instead of "The life you can save" Singer's book should be called "The money you can donate".

 

[Zarqon]

For me a core issue is still short term solutions vs. long term ones. Even if people today in general can donate more than they do currently, the amount of available money is still limited. As such, I don't see how it can be argued that one should buy food or vaccine that saves a few lives, only so that they can grow up in a world of war, famine, overpopulation, underproduction and corruption. It would be much better if the limited money available were organized centrally to try and fix the underlying problems in their society on a long term basis (like a 10-40 year re-organization plan). After that, we would no longer need to buy food for them, they could arrange that themselves.

In view of this, I just don't see how it can be considered better morality to keep spending money on short term fixes, when so little is done for the real long term ones.


From another point of view, imagine two scenarios:

1) If everyone follow Singer's arguement, and donated all their available money to buy vaccines and food, we could keep some people from dying today, and we would have to keep spending the money forever to continuously keep people from dying.

2) If on the other hand we let some people die now, while at the same time save up the same amount of money for 10 years, and then start a 10 year collective plan to stop war and corruption and build infrastructure, then after 30 years maybe no one is dying anymore. Maybe on a 50 year scale, fewer people would have died in total.

Which of these two scenarios is the moral choice?

My problem is that it seems to me that Singer's argument indicates that we should always go for scenario one, since there is always another child "infront" of you to be (temporarily) saved, and this just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[cobalt124]

Not really. Such a stance is closer to social democracy. Ideologies steaming from Marxism all asked for revolutionary changes.

I think we agree on this except for the usage of the word Marxism (I using it in relation to Marx, you in relation to ideolgies stemming from Marx). Ideologies will never work. I see social democracy as an evolving idea and so not an ideology. Similarly individuals helping each other across the planet in the same way you would help someone in your own street could evolve into a better way of living individual lives and improved conditions for the whole of the world. So I think Sanger has a valid point, on the individual level, and possibly wider.

Human psychology include the so called "social psychology". Yes, society does modulate status seeking behaviors.

You are sure society does not cause it? I only ask because your references to science in this thread appear general and don't seem to say much.

So it is raising to status.

I don't see this. Am I missing something crushingly obvious?

Frankly I don't care about their motives too much. They have their agenda, I have mine. And really, it's not my responsibility to help anyone. I doit if I want, as you seem to have agreed earlier, is a freaking personal choice. But now, several paragraphs later, you seem to have shifted your position, and you insist that personal responsibility exists. Well, which one fo those two going to be ?.

I am saying only one thing (maybe not very well). This is it. IMO, the stance laid out in the first three sentences can only cause damage, certainly to your surroundings worldwide, and possibly to the individuals who choose that lifestyle. Changing that cannot be imposed, a lot of individuals would have to make a free choice. This is what Sangers question is about, but I believe if that choice was made by enough people, the world would be a better place for it.

It;s either a choice, an elective , either a responsibility. Make up your mind on this pls.

It's primarily a choice. I just believe that taking Sangers choice would make us more responsible, but that's just me. Don't remember mentioning anything elective, so i don't know what you mean.

In the end, this can't result in a ESS. Such a society would be extremely vulnerable to profoundly egoistical humans, who would trive on the expense of others. They would quickly take over, till the population would end in a ESS.

Again, all I see is a vague reference to a scientific notion. Would it be any worse for the vulnerable than the current situation is?

Individuals from very distant groups, supporting them pretty much equals "for the good of the species".

This seems to put "science before empathy" and I would argue can only be damaging (mainly to the vulnerable).

Just because the things could have happened differently, doesn't mean that they did :P The reality is pretty much the one you have, not what it could have been if and if anf if

And just because things are happening as they are now, doesn't mean they have to or should continue happening like that just because it benefits the people who have made it so (not aimed at you). The reality is the one you choose, it isn't given to you, by nature, for example.

Yes I am. There is no social pressure on me from any in-groups that I donate. No norms "tho shalt donate" to which I would feel the need to conform to protect my status in my group.

I was asking whether lifestyle choices are made to protect a perceived status in a group, rather than them being made by a free choice.

 

[kote]

I agree with Zarqon here. The point is people are not going to devote all of their resources to saving children. We witness this every day. More importantly, there isn't a single one of us here who could not potentially give more. Beyond economic resources (which are critical), each of us has a limited personal capacity.

I think it's important that we not forget that each of us has limitations. So what's the best way to maximize our personal capacities for giving? I disagree that the personal sense of satisfaction is irrelevant. The more I can realize and be satisfied by my charitable efforts, the more I'll be willing to give. I recognize this, and I'll end up giving more by taking advantage of it. In this case, the moral thing to do is to be selfish.

If I can't personally be satisfied by my efforts, I'm going to burn out and stop giving. In cases like this, I maximize my giving by focusing my efforts where I will receive a personal return, and I believe it's the most ethical way to approach the longer term issue.

For me a core issue is still short term solutions vs. long term ones. Even if people today in general can donate more than they do currently, the amount of available money is still limited. As such, I don't see how it can be argued that one should buy food or vaccine that saves a few lives, only so that they can grow up in a world of war, famine, overpopulation, underproduction and corruption. It would be much better if the limited money available were organized centrally to try and fix the underlying problems in their society on a long term basis (like a 10-40 year re-organization plan). After that, we would no longer need to buy food for them, they could arrange that themselves.

In view of this, I just don't see how it can be considered better morality to keep spending money on short term fixes, when so little is done for the real long term ones.From another point of view, imagine two scenarios:

1) If everyone follow Singer's arguement, and donated all their available money to buy vaccines and food, we could keep some people from dying today, and we would have to keep spending the money forever to continuously keep people from dying.

2) If on the other hand we let some people die now, while at the same time save up the same amount of money for 10 years, and then start a 10 year collective plan to stop war and corruption and build infrastructure, then after 30 years maybe no one is dying anymore. Maybe on a 50 year scale, fewer people would have died in total.

Which of these two scenarios is the moral choice?

My problem is that it seems to me that Singer's argument indicates that we should always go for scenario one, since there is always another child "infront" of you to be (temporarily) saved, and this just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[akd_dka]

Earlier, I was having trouble seeing why someone who spends his hard earned money on an unnecessary luxury is being immoral(perhaps unintentionally immoral).
But in the view of limited resources on our planet , I'm beginning to see Singer's arguement.

If a person buys a 15$ shoe and rarely uses it amounts to wastage of natural resources namely the raw materials involved in the shoe. It is true that his 15$ is in circulation.

But had he used that 15$ to provide for vaccinations , then the natural resources used in making that vaccine would be utilised in a better way.

(Had our planet say 100 times the natural resources needed by our population , then perhaps a person buying a 15$ shoe which he doesn't need might not be very immoral.But given our technological advancement the natural resources today hang in a precarious balance.)

As Gandhi said , "Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed".