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

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

So you're telling me that out of the thousands of charities and billions of dollars they use yearly, no person has ever been helped?

Are you suggesting that we (the Western World) should give everything other than what is absolutely VITAL to us, to charity so as to save the third world ?

The ideal is there to challenge us into thinking about our spending choices and how they could rather be used to help someone in desperate need. Maybe instead of getting a 100gig ipod, you get a 60gig and donate the $50 difference to UNICEF. You still get a great ipod and maybe save a few children. How great is that!?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The ideal is there to challenge us into thinking about our spending choices and how they could rather be used to help someone in desperate need. Maybe instead of getting a 100gig ipod, you get a 60gig and donate the $50 difference to UNICEF. You still get a great ipod and maybe save a few children. How great is that!?

The Christian tradition is to tithe, or "tenth". The idea being that one should give 10% of their income to either support their church [which presumably provides charitable services], or to help the poor directly.

 

[ThomasT]

It's been asserted that Singer's appeal to middle class Americans' guilt and the argument in post #82 are flawed, and that the conclusion that it's wrong to not donate to aid agencies given available disposable wealth is untenable.

I replied to your post #113 (my post #114) and haven't seen a reply wrt that from you yet.

A further consideration might be that insofar as giving to aid agencies has the effect of diverting focus from underlying problems and long term solutions (ie. masking the real moral and physical problems contributing to the continued suffering of impoverished people in various regions), then it might be argued that following Singer's moral directive would actually serve to perpetuate the suffering of impoverished people.

I don't feel, and never have felt, compelled to give to aid agencies. So far, your arguments don't persuade. But I'm open to any revision thereof, or a viewpoint that hasn't been considered yet. And there's always the possibility that I've missed something.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

If you are suggesting that a donater must be the one injecting the child with a vaccine, that is absurd.

One example of a fantastic charity is Nothing But Nets http://www.nothingbutnets.net/ Donate $10 and you buy a kid a mosquito net. Every kid needs a net. Even as a tourist in east africa my hotel nets were riddled with holes.

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 argument makes no claim to being the solution of the problem.

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.

Please indulge me in how donating more frequently takes the focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution. If you think DemRep Congo will all of a sudden change it's policies because they are receiving less aid, think again.

I don't feel, and never have felt, compelled to give to aid agencies. So far, your arguments don't persuade. But I'm open to any revision thereof, or a viewpoint that hasn't been considered yet. And there's always the possibility that I've missed something.

Maybe you suffer from too much self-interest

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Maybe you suffer from too much self-interest

Thomas before I sound too much like a jerk, I want to clarify that there are many other ways to help instead of donating money. So if you do other things, such as volunteering, then great. Volunteering is an even better way.

 

[ThomasT]

Thomas before I sound too much like a jerk, I want to clarify that there are many other ways to help instead of donating money. So if you do other things, such as volunteering, then great. Volunteering is an even better way.

You don't sound like a jerk at all. You sound like an empathetic, compassionate person.

I'm thinking about, and formulating a reply to your previous post.

 

[DanP]

But I think you are just posing here as usual, rather than wanting a serious debate. So nuff said.

You mean , like you do, Apeiron , as usually ? Empty words ? Give me a break. This is all you are able to produce , empty words. Try harder. I know that you long from all your heart to see morality as a part of "human nature", but yeah, let's stick to what is scientifically known so far :P

 

[ThomasT]

If you are suggesting that a donater must be the one injecting the child with a vaccine, that is absurd.

Is it any more absurd than P3? Which says, "By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care ..." . Maybe you can (are), maybe you can't (aren't). You have no way of knowing. The only group that you can be sure that your donation helped is the aid agency itself. And maybe the person making the donation in some emotional way.

The argument makes no claim to being the solution of the problem.

I understand. Giving to aid agencies, and feeling good 'enough' about that action, and hence doing nothing wrt civic actions that might contribute to changing governments and hence policies, might actually contribute to the perpetuation of the 'permanent temporary solutions' that are currently the de facto status quo.

Please indulge me in how donating more frequently takes the focus away from actions that might eventually contribute to a lasting solution.

It doesn't necessarily, however I suspect that in most cases it does. But Singer's appeal and your argument don't address what might be done to help bring about a lasting solution.

Maybe you suffer from too much self-interest.

Arguments to emotion aren't going to persuade me that I should give to aid agencies. In any case, they're invalid in the philosophy forum.

 

[DanP]

Absolutely none of your comments are important in refuting the main argument which was refined here in this link https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82

But your whole logic in that post is flawed IMO. I pointed you an issue with the absolutism of good and bad, others pointed you other issues. I put you a personal question which you refused to answer so far, by what power you judge right or wrong , moral, immoral? Divine ? Social ? Personal ?

For none can accept the absolute statements of normative morality, unless they come from God.

 

[Zarqon]

So when we are buying our luxuries and driving our SUVs (I have one) and flying around the globe, do we think of any consequences at all? No. So we should be able to give unconditionally where needed and trust that the outcome will be more beneficial and less damaging than what we are doing now.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this reply to my post. My argument was meant to refute Singer's statement that we should be morally compelled to donate in order to save any starving child immediately "in front" of you. I think this won't work.

My post was not meant to refute the idea of donating at all, I do agree that we can and should do something. It's just that every dollar spent on temporary solutions like buy food and vaccine for people that will grow up to a very dysfunctional world, without doing anything to fix their world, is a dollar not spent right.

If you follow Singer's argument there is no escaping the fact that you have to go for short term solutions because there's always another child to save. The reason that there is always another child to save, is because we aren't fixing the underlying problem, which is that they can't sustain themselves.



regarding the Rawlsian arguement:
I may seem like a good argument to say: put yourself in the situation of a starving child and ask yourself, would you want to the world to buy you food? Yes, of course you would, but that does not make it the best way to act! I still advocate that it would be better if we collectively formed a long term plan to really fix their world, rather than keep perpetuating short term solutions, even if it means we have to look the other way if some people die now.

 

[alt]

So you're telling me that out of the thousands of charities and billions of dollars they use yearly, no person has ever been helped?

No, I'm not. I'm sure people have been helped. What I'm saying, is where do you draw the line, and is helping the third world, en masse, ultimately a good thing. The billions they (charities) use yearly ? OK - double it - triple it. WHAT THEN ? This is the point that's studiously avoided each time such a discussion comes up. WHAT THEN ? Those millions and millions that you have saved and made healthy and well, will reproduce, into an already burgeoning population. You've only shifted the problem a generation or two, and made it double or triple worse. That is, unless you introduce a mass sterilisation program, at which point, you may as well say you've taken over the role of the diety (or natural law, depending ..)

The ideal is there to challenge us into thinking about our spending choices and how they could rather be used to help someone in desperate need. Maybe instead of getting a 100gig ipod, you get a 60gig and donate the $50 difference to UNICEF. You still get a great ipod and maybe save a few children. How great is that!?

But earlier, you said ..
Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong.

A 60g ipod is also non essential - heck, I honestly have never had any ipod at all, and am doing fine. The $130 dinner I just had with the missuss was non-essential; though very enjoyable. The luxury car I drive is non essential. This web-site is non-essential.

It could realistically be argued that a very large percentage of what we spend in your country and mine, is non-essentail. By Peter's terms, all this is morally wrong.

There is something very wrong with HIS proposition though, I reckon !

edited to insert 'dinner' after $130.

 

[DanP]

It could realistically be argued that a very large percentage of what we spend in your country and mine, is non-essentail. By Peter's terms, all this is morally wrong.

There is something very wrong with HIS proposition though, I reckon !

edited to insert 'dinner' after $130.

I think before he judges others based on his views of normative morality and taking a "holier than you" stance through this, Singer should quit his job at Princeton, and go do some up close and personal job in Central Africa. Actually save someone with his hands :P

Then, and only then, you can boost that you saved lives. Else, all can one say is "I had an extremely minor part with my donation to UNICEF to support their action in WahteverCountry which, according to their report, had the following consequences"

Also, Ill quote wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)

Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, criticised Singer's appointment to the Princeton Faculty in a banquet speech at the organisation's national convention in July 2001, claiming that Singer's support for euthanizing disabled babies could lead to disabled older children and adults being valued less as well.[41]

If this is true that Singer justifies killing disabled babies, how does he conciliate this position with the position "you are immoral if you do not help poor ppl".

To mods: I am interesting in how Singer reconciles the two very different stances he has, one in which he seems to justify killing babies, and one in which he basically calls the whole western society immoral because "we do not donate our surplus". This is not an attack to his character.

 

[alt]

I think before he judges others based on his views of normative morality and taking a "holier than you" stance through this, Singer should quit his job at Princeton, and go do some up close and personal job in Central Africa. Actually save someone with his hands :P

Then, and only then, you can boost that you saved lives. Else, all can one say is "I had an extremely minor part with my donation to UNICEF to support their action in WahteverCountry which, according to their report, had the following consequences"

Look, I must agree. Earlier on I said "Firstly, is HE giving all HIS money other than for non essentials, to the cause he promotes ? Has he given proof of this ? I mean ALL his money - not just some discretionary feely goody amount ?"

I haven't read his book, but from what's been posted here it seems that in fairly certain terms, he calls all our spending, other than on essential items, immoral.

That's a very strong, and IMO, offensive accusation, and entitles us to put the spotlight back on HIM, and ask him about ALL of his non-essential spending.

edit - grammar - error in '(un)certain'

 

[alt]

If this is true that Singer justifies killing disabled babies, how does he conciliate this position with the position "you are immoral if you do not help poor ppl".

Didn't see that first up - you must have just edited it in.

Wow ! Just .. WOW !

 

[baywax]

I think the best solution is to facilitate the self sufficiency of all nations.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

(Chinese Proverb)

Some of the programs that install clean water wells in communities are an activity I support along with secular education. This seems the least "enabling" of charities and the least "commie".

 

[Mkorr]

If this is true that Singer justifies killing disabled babies, how does he conciliate this position with the position "you are immoral if you do not help poor ppl".

Singer is primarily a utilitarian (not a rights theorist) and believes in the reduction of suffering. If it is the case that he supports euthanasia, then he most likely does this because it allegedly causes less suffering than being severely disabled and supposedly an act of great mercy. This seems on the surface compatible with the position that not helping poor people is immoral, regardless of the truth of falsity of either of the two positions?

 

[cobalt124]

Yes. It wouldn't be in equilibrium.

How is that worse for the vulnerable.

Sad but true. And is not damaging to the individuals with the power.

A stance based purely on intellect. And I dispute it is not damaging to the individuals with the power.

Many "visionaries" where deluded by the same dream you have. That the reality is the one you choose, that humans are a blank slate on which you can write anything.

I'm not a visionary. I'm not choosing a reality. I'm saying if individuals give what they can freely, things will improve. I don't see an outcome. Just improvement. Humans can make choices.

One was the beloved archkiller Chairman Mao:

Unfortunately, this is not true. Humans are not blank slates. They come with mammalian brains modeled by evolution. With behaviors modulated by our biology.

Mao achieved nothing in this respect. Individuals have to decide for themselves.

What the heck is a free choice ?

Sloppy language from me here. I meant "rather than being made without regard to protecting a perceived status in a group".

Humans come with a part of the brain ... **modulates** our behaviors.

Not convinced science applies here to the extent you allow it. Hopefully I'll get time to open the thread.

And if you want to add more to this mess of "free will"...

My sloppy again. Don't want a discussion on free will, I don't think that would be very useful in this thread.

TO lighten up the thread, I present

Free will: The Man, The Nature, The Nurture , the Movie

One of my favourite films.

they need BILLIONS of dollars

They need help. Money alone won't do it.

we need to take down some of there terrible governments and incorporate better more Capitalistic ones that we can mentor.

Imposing this on people is wrong and won't (isn't) working. Capitalism won't (isn't) saving them. Democracy won't (isn't) saving them. Only individuals can save them.

We've already poured waste baskets of money and yet they die everyday when there's a drought their we can't afford the water to keep all of them hydrated

Maybe we are doing something wrong, for the wrong reasons.

when time comes mother nature will wipe you out.

Maybe we should stop doing it and leave the wiping out to Mother Nature.

I couldn't agree with you more and there are organizations out there you can support who do exactly this.

Monsanto is happy. Traditional farmers are screwed.

An example of a perceived good being done for the wrong reasons.

Their perspective seemed to be that the volunteers were much more valuable than the money.

I believe money alone will never fix it.

 

[baywax]

I believe money alone will never fix it.

I believe what you do with money can fix/f***up anything.

 

[EnumaElish]

Singer is primarily a utilitarian (not a rights theorist) and believes in the reduction of suffering.

Does Choice[/url] reduce suffering? I am not going to say that "choosing one child over the other increases total suffering," but does it make an indent? When somewhere, someone is playing God (intentionally or not); are our choices between letting the boy die or letting the girl die?

Formally, what is his metric of utility? If it's maximin, then suffering is not indented a bit as long as one child dies (the worst off). (Unless the child is better off dying? -- which may be his case for euthanesia?) Clearly it's not maximin, but something of an additive function. But, it does seems to exclude "utility from candy." So it's an additive function over a predetermined set of goods ("necessities") and/or a set of individuals ("the starving"); and it ignores questions like "the agony of deciding who is going to die."

 

[chiro]

I'd be very interested in seeing exactly how much money gets to the intended victims either through infrastructure projects, food, clean water and so on, instead of the money getting lost in so called "administration" and "other" costs.

 

[Lacy33]

"that a mind without a heart... is nothing. ..."
Memorable quotes for
The Chosen (1981)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082175/quotes?qt1378244"

 

[alt]

I think the best solution is to facilitate the self sufficiency of all nations.



(Chinese Proverb)

Some of the programs that install clean water wells in communities are an activity I support along with secular education. This seems the least "enabling" of charities and the least "commie".

Nations are, by logical extention, self sufficient. Their populations gravitate to a level akin to what their financial or other resources dictate. Interferance with that by way of well meaning charity, only creates dependency, then higher population with more dependency.

Why on Earth would we want to exacerbate the population levels of, say, China or India ?

 

[cobalt124]

This post was a response to the OP where Singer starts off saying we are all immoral the second you spend your money on unnecessary items in light of the fact there are starving people on opposite side of the globe. In order to save face, and emancipate yourself from such allegations you have to actively give up your wealth until you descent to a poverty level equal to that of those currently in most need.

Morality doesn't need to be an issue. If we can consume without thinking about the morality/consequences, why can't we give where it is needed. I don't see how that leads us down a worse path than the one we are going down now.

So, what to do? Who's to say that Greg has not saved a number of lives already simply by starting this thread? Did that cost 5 dollars a month? No... er... well, let's pretend Greg doesn't own the site... Just stirring up a consciousness of these children and families in dire need is an act that goes a long way toward supporting their survival. I don't have the empirical evidence to back that up but it seem obvious that exposing the conditions, and discussing the people in danger leads to actions that serve to help them.

This is the issue for me. There is a sense that you don't need to know the ins and outs of outcomes. If you do something good good will come of it. I thinks it's true of PF in general. A good thing done for good reasons with the good outcomes here but not known initially. If a race hate (say) website was opened, you can guarantee that no good would come from it. So I'm sorry, but in this somewhere is a sense of right and wrong, whether we like it or not, but at the end of the day, only individuals' choices can fix this. Maybe sanger is telling us this.

I find it morally repugnant that it would even be implied that it makes one a 'bad' person to allow natural selection to take place. Quite the opposite, I find that it takes a very strong person to set emotions aside and let a population reach equilibrium with both its habitat and social confines.

There is a difference between nature having its own way, and letting nature have its own way. I don't see this as strong at all.

He states he donates 70% of the profit from book sales. The argument is an ideal. It is meant to challenge us in thinking about our obligations to helping those trapped in extreme poverty.

And none of us want that challenge. I'm only committed to thinking about it at the moment.

and it doesn't even matter if you have ulterior reasons or not. The deed remains.

I would argue that it does matter, money alone does not fix this, and the ulterior motives inherent in the solutions so far tried will mean they will fail (as they are).

It is still natural selection, whatever you help them or not. Genes giving raise to over-altruistic behaviors or over-egoistic ones will be judged in time.

It's flawed to assume that by helping you somehow "interfere with natural selection".

Yes, natural selection will decide, we can't decide for it.

Then I sincerely hope "my side" is winning :D

Me too!

And males can choose to cease to want sex. Will it happen ?

You can tell me more about that one when I get round to opening the thread.

Hard to answer. Almost impossible.

So when challenging Sanger we get biology, sociology, psychology, we get ESS and Dawkins, albeit very generally. And when challenging Sangers opponents in this thread we get five words. The answer clearly is the moral stance would be far closer to the opposite of the stance taken now.

Its been decades since rich nations started helping the less developed nations. But the disparity continues. That's one thing that makes me think a few "competitive" minds between our giving and the act of helping are slowing medical and educational progress in Africa, Indonesia, India and other stricken peoples.

Agreed.

Which is a flawed idea, but anyway, it's funny.

Glib.

 

[cobalt124]

One thing about being human is that we can model and predict, which makes our evolutionary future rather less blind than you imply as "natural" here. We can look ahead and make choices.

But I think you are just posing here as usual, rather than wanting a serious debate. So nuff said.

More to think about. I'll reserve my judgement on the posing.

Firstly, is HE giving all HIS money other than for non essentials, to the cause he promotes ? Has he given proof of this ? I mean ALL his money - not just some discretionary feely goody amount ?

Sanger isn't asking for sacrifice IMO. He's asking for individuals to give unconditionally, where there is a need.

I saw a program recently - about the worst slum in India (forgot it's name, sorry) - people there were happier than most Westeners.

So it is possible that not giving unconditionally to a need can cause harm, i.e. the possessions make us less happy.

I know that you long from all your heart to see morality as a part of "human nature", but yeah, let's stick to what is scientifically known so far :P

Leaving issues like this primarily to science is a very dangerous tack to take.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by this reply to my post. My argument was meant to refute Singer's statement that we should be morally compelled to donate in order to save any starving child immediately "in front" of you. I think this won't work.

Agreed. Moral compulsion won't work. Choosing to give will, IMO, improve the situation.

It's just that every dollar spent on temporary solutions like buy food and vaccine for people that will grow up to a very dysfunctional world

I would say the world is already dysfunctional, and doesn't want to listen.

we aren't fixing the underlying problem, which is that they can't sustain themselves.

The underlying problem could be a dysfunctional world.

even if it means we have to look the other way if some people die now.

For the same reasons that we can't force individuals to give, we can't decide who is to die and when. The idea is to give what you can, freely, to a need. The moral issue then goes away.

Damn, just noticed he's called Singer, not Sanger.

 

[EnumaElish]

With the possible exception of the U. S., Singer should/must be addressing government spending. In most countries, most "middle class" live almost comfortably but not quite, they are taxed heavily directly and indirectly; they regularly face choices like "heat one more room or buy that textbook for the kid," and there's nary an office party with three times the food that anyone could possibly eat (so they cannot take it leftovers to home). Technically, they don't have much discretionary income, monetary or in "goods." (Discretionary income becomes nonzero above the poverty income, see http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/10/figure/F1, but poverty income does not include textbooks or comfortable heating.)

The remaining course of action for their moral citizenry is to influence their government's spending decision; as in "LHC vs. Africa." That is, in that course of action, giant spending items like the LHC are the easy targets.

 

[baywax]

Nations are, by logical extention, self sufficient. Their populations gravitate to a level akin to what their financial or other resources dictate. Interferance with that by way of well meaning charity, only creates dependency, then higher population with more dependency.

Why on Earth would we want to exacerbate the population levels of, say, China or India ?

Included in my definition of a population's self sufficiency is its ability to manage a sustainable population. (And not by way of culling or genocide, fascism or religious persecution, etc...) more by way of a well distributed education system. For instance, in the west (with its mandatory education policies) population growth has slowed

Almost all population growth is in the developing world. As a result of differences in population growth, Europe’s population will decline from 13% to 7% of world population over the next quarter century, while that of sub-Saharan Africa will rise from 10% to 17%. The shares of other regions are projected to remain about the same as today.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/hinrichsen_robey.htmlHere's some further evidence that a developed and somewhat self sufficient nation will manage the growth of its population where a "developing" nation may not have the infrastructure to effect a decrease in growth through better education.

Paige Whaley Eager argues that the shift in perception that occurred in the 1960s must be understood in the context of the demographic changes that took place at the time.[18] It was only in the first decade of the 19th century that the world's population reached one billion. The second billion was added in the 1930s, and the next billion in the 1960s. 90 percent of this net increase occurred in developing countries.[18] Eager also argues that, at the time, the United States recognised that these demographic changes could significantly affect global geopolitics. Large increases occurred in China, Mexico and Nigeria, and demographers warned of a "population explosion," particularly in developing countries from the mid-1950s onwards.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

Given the context of the discussion, is this immoral?

For only $240 dollars, you can change a child's life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S95xz6901sw

I do see one problem with the theory of ignorant bliss. I assume you would agree that nearly all mentally healthy people have a basically good nature. No one would want to watch a child drown. But wealthy people who live in impoverished countries usually do ignore the suffering. And the same can be said for Americans who visit those countries. Most people are compelled to give in some fashion, but only to such a level that is comfortable. I've never even met a missionary who gave away 50% of their personal wealth while working with the poor.

In our own country, during the Great Depression, there were plenty of people who turned away starving beggers who knocked on their door. When push comes to shove, "Me and mine" is not a 50/50 option.

 

[cobalt124]

Singers proposal is possible:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/nov/19/charity-third-salary-toby-ord

 

[waht]

Singers proposal is possible:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/nov/19/charity-third-salary-toby-ord

Toby is an exception because he doesn't have children. What if every middle class parent were to donates 30% of their salary to charity ahead of their own children, is that ever going to happen?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Singers proposal is possible:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/nov/19/charity-third-salary-toby-ord

There is also the 50% club which the facebook founder just joined
http://www.bnet.com/blog/business-n...illionaires-behaving-beneficently-or-not/3842

In that link there is also a fun video of when Singer was on the Colbert Show.

 

[cobalt124]

Toby is an exception because he doesn't have children. What if every middle class parent were to donates 30% of their salary to charity ahead of their own children, is that ever going to happen?

Yes, it may be different in families. For one, if you give significantly it's not going to be an individual choice, it it going to be a family choice. But those discussions wouldn't take place if an individual in a family goes out for a beer, smokes, eats a chocolate bar, drinks coca cola and so on. This is where giving certainly would work, and Singer is asking us to think about this.

 

[cobalt124]

I believe what you do with money can fix/f***up anything.

Money alone doesn't (hasn't) always fixed anything.

"that a mind without a heart... is nothing. ..."

And potentially dangerous.

 

[DanP]

H

Not convinced science applies here to the extent you allow it. Hopefully I'll get time to open the thread.

Look, my role is not to convince you that science applies or not. Only you can do that.

 

[DanP]

Singer is primarily a utilitarian (not a rights theorist) and believes in the reduction of suffering. If it is the case that he supports euthanasia, then he most likely does this because it allegedly causes less suffering than being severely disabled and supposedly an act of great mercy. This seems on the surface compatible with the position that not helping poor people is immoral, regardless of the truth of falsity of either of the two positions?

Allegedly is the right words. Singer is a monument of hypocrisy. He doesn't hesitate to call the bulk of our society immoral, while at the same time he assumes God like judgment once again, postulating that disabled babies do not have a place on this planet.

The two positions(donate or you are immoral) and (thou shalt kill the disabled children) are irreconcilable IMO.

Why not use money to make more foundations to help disabled children ? OUR children ? Is it better to donate to NGOs which will poor the money god knows where, then save our babies which Singer would not mind to be exterminated ?

 

[DanP]

The answer clearly is the moral stance would be far closer to the opposite of the stance taken now.


.

You see what you want to see :P

 

[DanP]

Yes, it may be different in families. For one, if you give significantly it's not going to be an individual choice, it it going to be a family choice. But those discussions wouldn't take place if an individual in a family goes out for a beer, smokes, eats a chocolate bar, drinks coca cola and so on. This is where giving certainly would work, and Singer is asking us to think about this.

And what will you tell to you children when they are 18 and they ask you "mom, dad why is my college fund 1/2 of that of my schoolmate and he gets to go to University X and I can't afford it" ?

"No worries child, we took a family decision to donate money to NGOs, instead of saving them for you. nothing personal, you know, we just couldn't bare the idea to be called immoral".

 

[Antiphon]

Does Singer also believe it is imperative to make war on oppressive governments who induce unnecessary starvation?

 

[cobalt124]

And what will you tell to you children when they are 18 and they ask you "mom, dad why is my college fund 1/2 of that of my schoolmate and he gets to go to University X and I can't afford it" ?

"No worries child, we took a family decision to donate money to NGOs, instead of saving them for you. nothing personal, you know, we just couldn't bare the idea to be called immoral".

If they didn't the response would surely be:

"No worries child, we took a family decision to [STRIKE]donate money to NGOs[/STRIKE] go out for a beer, smoke, eat chocolate bars, drink coca cola and so on instead of saving them for you. nothing personal, you know, [STRIKE]we just couldn't bare the idea to be called immoral[/STRIKE]".

 

[DanP]

If they didn't the response would surely be:

"No worries child, we took a family decision to [STRIKE]donate money to NGOs[/STRIKE] go out for a beer, smoke, eat chocolate bars, drink coca cola and so on instead of saving them for you. nothing personal, you know, [STRIKE]we just couldn't bare the idea to be called immoral[/STRIKE]".

Ahh, really funny . You think that:

1. social gatherings with social of family are not necessary. Because, we all know, humans perform well at job / family / whatever when they live like hermits and don't go out at all. No restaurants, no dinners, no beers, no friends. Unfortunately the idea is flawed to the bone, such expenses are not really unnecessary. They do contribute to satisfy the social needs of a human being. Yes, a dinner with your wife, a beer with coworkers friends ...

2. Smoking is an addiction, an ICD most likely. Alcoholism as well.. those ppl needs our help , not to be called immoral by do-gooders

3. Eat chocolate bars: is nutrition non-essential for you ? Can you live with air alone ?

4. Drink Cocal Cola. Again, it's an aliment with a certain nutritional value. What, now I am immoral if I drink Coal to satisfy my requirement of daily CHOs ?

So maybe, just maybe, you may want to find other "unnecessary" items for your list ?

My points stands. Your first and foremost duty is to your kids.

 

[cobalt124]

Ahh, really funny . You think that:

I do apologise, I wasn't trying to be funny, or sarcastic or anything. That's just how I see it, and that seemed the quickest, most direct way to express it.

1. social gatherings with social of family are not necessary. Because, we all know, humans perform well at job / family / whatever when they live like hermits and don't go out at all. No restaurants, no dinners, no beers, no friends. Unfortunately the idea is flawed to the bone, such expenses are not really unnecessary. They do contribute to satisfy the social needs of a human being. Yes, a dinner with your wife, a beer with coworkers friends ...

Yes, it's to what excess it is done. I don't see it as all or nothing. You saying there is no excess? Just to make sure, this does have to be an individual choice.

2. Smoking is an addiction, an ICD most likely. Alcoholism as well.. those ppl needs our help , not to be called immoral by do-gooders

I don't believe I have accused anyone of being immoral in this thread.

2. 3. Eat chocolate bars: is nutrition non-essential for you ? Can you live with air alone ?

Again it's an issue of excess, and I reckon we could survive nutritionally without chocolate. It's hardly a health product.

4. Drink Cocal Cola. Again, it's an aliment with a certain nutritional value. What, now I am immoral if I drink Coal to satisfy my requirement of daily CHOs ?

Ditto.

So maybe, just maybe, you may want to find other "unnecessary" items for your list ? ?

Crisps, fast foods, cakes... to excess.

My points stands. Your first and foremost duty is to your kids.

It doesn't, and mine is.

 

[DanP]

Yes, it's to what excess it is done. I don't see it as all or nothing. You saying there is no excess? Just to make sure, this does have to be an individual choice.

What I am saying is that socialization is a requirement for humans. Second, I can't quantify whatever is there an excess or not. If my restaurant of choice charges 140 on a dinner for two instead of 40something, you can't define that automatically as an excess. You have no idea what makes me feel good, or how much money I can spend on the items you deem "unnecessary". Things are OK as they are now. Some donate, some do not.
You can't call the ones who do not donate immoral. You have no idea about their lives, their plans, their struggles with money. It may look that they are having a lot of unnecessary items, but it's not for you to decide that. Its not for any of us.

Again it's an issue of excess, and I reckon we could survive nutritionally without chocolate. It's hardly a health product.

Ditto.

Crisps, fast foods, cakes... to excess.

It;s not up for you to decide how much one should eat, you know ? It;s not up to anyone to say "you should eat 1867 kcal/ day, the rest is excess and you should donate".

Besides the argument that "we could survive nutritionally without chocolate" has no place here. For it can be easily generalized "we can survive nutritionally without any specific food". Just get another one :P Which I reckon still will cost money.

It doesn't, and mine is.

5?

 

[cobalt124]

What I am saying is that socialization is a requirement for humans. Second, I can't quantify whatever is there an excess or not. If my restaurant of choice charges 140 on a dinner for two instead of 40something, you can't define that automatically as an excess. You have no idea what makes me feel good, or how much money I can spend on the items you deem "unnecessary". Things are OK as they are now.?

It's an individual choice.

It;s not up for you to decide how much one should eat, you know ? It;s not up to anyone to say "you should eat 1867 kcal/ day, the rest is excess and you should donate".

I'm not deciding. Is anything I said incorrect?

Besides the argument that "we could survive nutritionally without chocolate" has no place here. For it can be easily generalized "we can survive nutritionally without any specific food". Just get another one :P Which I reckon still will cost money.

I wasn't the one who introduced the nutritional value of chocolate.

 

[DanP]

It's an individual choice.

Good. Than do you agree that Singer has no case, and he is not to be allwoed to make judgments in the form of a "moral imperative" on hard working citizens who work their asses of for their money ?

I wasn't the one who introduced the nutritional value of chocolate.

No indeed. You was the one who claimed is unnecessary, and later hinted that it is so because "we could survive without it". We could, yeah, but again, no one has anything to say about what I am taking my RDA of CHO from. If it's not chocolate, maybe is an expensive organic labeled food.

 

[cobalt124]

Good. Than do you agree that Singer has no case, and he is not to be allwoed to make judgments in the form of a "moral imperative" on hard working citizens who work their asses of for their money ?

I've been careful to keep out of that argument, so please do not try to lump me in with it. If individuals make a choice on what Singer is suggesting, I believe it will be for the better. Morality doesn't necessarily have to come into it. I don't see this as being about Singers judgements, just the question he posed.

No indeed. You was the one who claimed is unnecessary, and later hinted that it is so because "we could survive without it". We could, yeah, but again, no one has anything to say about what I am taking my RDA of CHO from. If it's not chocolate, maybe is an expensive organic labeled food.

It is unnecessary. RDA of CHO has nothing to do with the OP, so I won't comment.

 

[DanP]

This is a nice quote from a Frans de Waal interview:

Q: So do you think we're more bonobo or more chimp?

A: Uh, I usually say that we're both. Is that a good answer? No, you want a choice!

Q: Well, if you had to make a choice.

A: I would say there are people in this world who like hierarchies, they like to keep people in their place, they like law enforcement, and they probably have a lot in common, let's say, with the chimpanzee. And then you have other people in this world who root for the underdog, they give to the poor, they feel the need to be good, and they maybe have more of this kinder bonobo side to them. Our societies are constructed around the interface between those two, so we need both actually.
l

Equilibrium between competitive and cooperative behaviors. It's they key of our society, probably the key of any population of animals in this world.

I believe that the human bonobos should not think of themselves as being better and more righteous than the human chimps. We stay in balance because of both.

 

[apeiron]

Try harder. I know that you long from all your heart to see morality as a part of "human nature", but yeah, let's stick to what is scientifically known so far :P

It's great to see that you now adopt my view that it is all about competition~cooperation in equilibrium. This is the key to understanding the natural logic of morality as you say.

And also that you are an enthusiast for de Waal's work.

I think if we study the primates, we notice that a lot of these things that we value in ourselves, such as human morality, have a connection with primate behavior. This completely changes the perspective, if you start thinking that actually we tap into our biological resources to become moral beings. That gives a completely different view of ourselves than this nasty selfish-gene type view that has been promoted for the last 25 years.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/bonobo-all-us.html

 

[DanP]

It's great to see that you now adopt my view that it is all about competition~cooperation in equilibrium. This is the key to understanding the natural logic of morality as you say.

I don't have a problem with your word-view per se. I have issues with some of the conclusions you draw from it.

An example was your attempt to sell oxytocin as anything to do with morality. Or even in this post, that there is a natural logic to morality.

Moral sense IMO requires a fully working theory of mind. You don't get that till pretty late life in your life, probably at about age of 10.

Nature is amoral. Morality doesn't require any existence of a natural logic in morality. You (with the help of the society) can build a "moral sense" from amoral rudiments. Cooperative and competitive behaviors, a theory of mind, emotions.

And also that you are an enthusiast for de Waal's work.

Big fan. But it doesn't mean I chew anything he says. However, I don't have a particular problem with the quote you pasted, since it can be interpreted in many ways, and only god knows what he really meant with it, especially considering the audience of that interview.

Did he meant that we have to tap in our AMORAL resoruces (biological resources) to build a moral sense ? He is damn right, we can't have a theory of mind without a RTPJ to support it. Furthermore , our biology modulates every behavior we have. So what's interesting here ? Nothing.

The moral load of a behavior comes from the social context in which the behavior was executed. It;s descriptive in nature, and reflects the believes and norms of a society at a certain moment in time. It is not normative, moral norms do not come from God, neither do they come from nature. The come from society, and they are not absolute, it's all about context.

Killers can be both heroes and outcasts :P
Second the claim that tapping for morality in our biological resources gives a "different worldview" than the selfish gene theory is flawed IMO.

For it is easy for a "selfish gene" to create an altruistic individual, if by doing so it maximizes the number of its copies in the gene pool.

I think ppl in general are scared garbageless of the world "selfish". That Dawkins choose an unfortunate name for his book.

 

[apeiron]

I You (with the help of the society) can build a "moral sense" from amoral rudiments. Cooperative and competitive behaviors, a theory of mind, emotions.

What is it that makes these rudiments a-moral?

There is a sense in which they are natually right or wrong. They are either biologically functional or they are not. If you are saying right and wrong is defined by some supernatural agency or criteria, then fine. But as soon as you take a stance based on what is natural, then it is semantic quibbling to say there is no right or wrong about it.

However, I don't have a particular problem with the quote you pasted, since it can be interpreted in many ways, and only god knows what he really meant with it, especially considering the audience of that interview.

Oh it doesn't seem difficult to fathom what he is saying. He says what we humans call moral behaviour has its clear roots in the biology of social animals. And that the selfish gene school of thought, which attempts to reduce global behaviours to the atomised statistics of gene counts, is - nasty.

moral norms do not come from God, neither do they come from nature. The come from society, and they are not absolute, it's all about context.

Sociology just repeats biology here. As you say (or as I said), evolution drives species to a suitable equilibrium balance of competitive and cooperative behaviours. The balance is fine-tuned and not just plucked out of the air. It happens in animals with genetic evolution, and has happened again in humans with memetic evolution.

Amoral is a term that was invented to describe the aberrant individual - the one with unnatural behaviours. Usually an immaturity, psychopathology, or socialisation issue would be the cause.

Your thesis is that reality has no morality. The universe couldn't care. So humans invent rules and play by them - for no particular reason.

Yet it is just so obvious that both on a biological level, and a sociological one, there is a fine-tuning of behaviours for functionality. There is a 'right' way to live. Even if it does require the juggling of apparently conflicting impulses like competition and cooperation. That is one reason why social creatures have large brains. To juggle these alternatives well.

Killers can be both heroes and outcasts :P

Posing again hey? Or can you source a study that explains the variables involved.

 

[DanP]

What is it that makes these rudiments a-moral?

There is a sense in which they are natually right or wrong. They are either biologically functional or they are not.

Killing is biologically functional. Hence right, after your theory and because it's naturally right, it is moral. An interesting point of view you present here. I think now I slowly start to fathom what school of thought Singer may have followed when he advocated its moral to kill disabled babies. Just kidding .

This is not some unimportant semantic, as you always try to downplay it. It's fundamental.

I have no problem accepting your wild speculations, but then we must call each behavior who in any way whatsoever contributes to an equilibrium moral.

Oh it doesn't seem difficult to fathom what he is saying. He says what we humans call moral behaviour has its clear roots in the biology of social animals. And that the selfish gene school of thought, which attempts to reduce global behaviours to the atomised statistics of gene counts, is - nasty.

This is what you want to see, or perhaps you had a long correspondence with him or had some beers and he confirmed this sense of it.

Amoral is a term that was invented to describe the aberrant individual - the one with unnatural behaviours. Usually an immaturity, psychopathology, or socialisation issue would be the cause.

A thesis, with no support in reality IMO. Amorality, or moral nihilism, is a strong and perfectly valid current in philosophy. It represents the point of view that

Morality may simply be a kind of make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that represents nothing real and is seen as a human creation[1] p. 292

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism

Now I can understand if you prefer to call those ppl sick, psychopaths, or whatever else. And if you want to extend those diagnostics to utilitarians as well, whp take it even further, and argue that killing innocents is not always wrong. In a way, they put the ethical load in context, exactly like I do. Singer himself argues that killing innocents is not always wrong.

But Ill have to disagree with you. There is nothing wrong with Singer, IMO.

Your thesis is that reality has no morality. The universe couldn't care. So humans invent rules and play by them - for no particular reason.

Yes, the universe couldn't care less. Do you have a different point of view ? I don't get exactly what you are trying to say here. You claim that there is a purposeful design and that the universe "cares" ?

Also I didnt said that the moral rules are invented for no particular reasons. I said that behaviors are largely amoral. Killing is neither right or wrong. It's the social context which gives the ethical load. And so humans have established a rule that killing your neighbor is wrong. And another one that killing in self-defense the one who enters your house is right. And another one that killing "others" in wars to protect one's way of life is not only right, it makes you a hero. Same in the streets of your city, if you have a badge and the victim is one of the bad guys. And a very gray rule that killing somebody in an accident is not so bad, and should be "forgiven". And another rule that killing animals to feed yourself is OK. But yet another particular rule that killing your dog to eat it is not OK :P But then the Chinese ppl came and they said its right to kill your dog and eat it.

Without a theory of mind, humans are unable to make moral judgments on others. You don't get that from "nature". You get it from the social context. This is the one of the biggest problems your theory has.

So yeah, go ahead and prove it to the world, for the burden of proof is on you.

Yet it is just so obvious that both on a biological level, and a sociological one, there is a fine-tuning of behaviours for functionality. There is a 'right' way to live. Even if it does require the juggling of apparently conflicting impulses like competition and cooperation. That is one reason why social creatures have large brains. To juggle these alternatives well.

And it just happens, the right way to live is the one you long to see coming to life :P

Posing again hey?

What are you, like 5 years old Apeiron ?

 

[cobalt124]

I believe that the human bonobos should not think of themselves as being better and more righteous than the human chimps. We stay in balance because of both.

Its about doing something that will make things better, not being better. Though we probably differ on what better means here.

"if you start thinking that actually we tap into our biological resources to become moral beings. That gives a completely different view of ourselves than this nasty selfish-gene type view that has been promoted for the last 25 years."

This sounds more like it. Morality from our biology. Which doesn't mean biology takes precedence over morality. Same with sociology and psychology.