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

[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.

 

[DanP]

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

The problem with that is very simple. You can't make any moral judgment without a theory of mind.

The theory of mind is not developed in a human until the age of 10. The PFC is not completely myelinated till the the age of 25. The implications are simple, those parts of the brain are heavily modeled by social interactions.

It is absurd to postulate a moral sense arising from biology. Our behaviors are modulated by biology. They are later subjected to moral judgments, and ALWAYS judged within the social context. It's all about social context.

 

[alt]

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.

Its about doing something that will make things better ..

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

 

[DanP]

Its about doing something that will make things better ..

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

Maybe it "feels right", therefore it must be true? The noble thing to do. Romantic ideas like Rousseau's "Noble Savage" utopia. That humans are pure , noble creatures, and it is our society which corrupted the hearts of men, and we have but to choose and we will return to the natural state of bliss :P

 

[cobalt124]

You can't make any moral judgment without a theory of mind.

If you really believed that you wouldn't get so emotive about Singers moralising. You would just state he doesn't have a theory of mind. End of discussion. Unless I misunderstand you.

The theory of mind is not developed in a human until the age of 10. The PFC is not completely myelinated till the the age of 25. The implications are simple, those parts of the brain are heavily modeled by social interactions.

Sorry, I'm missing your point here.

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

If you give something freely where there is a need I believe it can only do good. The situation you describe may be being caused by witholding things that are needed, for example, as has been stated in this thread, education.

Maybe it "feels right", therefore it must be true?

Given up on morality and started on feelings? In this thread, I haven't invoked morality or feelings. I don't need to.

 

[disregardthat]

Its about doing something that will make things better ..

How do you make things better by making large numbers of people in poorer nations more able to reproduce, thus, ultimately compounding their (and the planets) already burgeoning population ?

This kind of cynical and twisted consequentialism has nothing to do with morality. If it leads you to the conclusion that leaving people to starve is a the morally correct decision because the alternative adds to the already existing global problems, something is horribly wrong. This kind of argumentation cannot be universalized. Say, it isn't morally correct to suppress fundamental individual rights even if it would be of global benefit.

 

[DanP]

If you really believed that you wouldn't get so emotive about Singers moralising. You would just state he doesn't have a theory of mind.

It seems to me that you are falling for emotive arguments. It's OK, but not really important here. Do you even understand what psychology calls "theory of mind" ? It's role in performing moral reasoning ? I frankly doubt it. Else you wouldn't emit such absurd statements like the one bolded.

Do you realize that Singer is performing moral reasoning, no matter if he concludes that we must donate to poor, euthanize disabled babies, or simply concluding that is not always wrong to kill an innocent being ? That the prerequisite of this kind of reasoning and attributing the immoral quality to someone based on this reasoning is a fully developed theory of mind ? Apparently not.

End of discussion.

What? You think you’re some kind of Jedi, waving your hand around like that?

Get a grip. You can retire from the thread at any moment you desire, but you don't get to say when a discussion has ended.

Given up on morality and started on feelings? In this thread, I haven't invoked morality or feelings. I don't need to.

I wasn't talking with you, I was talking with Alt :P

 

[DanP]

This kind of cynical and twisted consequentialism has nothing to do with morality. If it leads you to the conclusion that leaving people to starve is a the morally correct decision because the alternative adds to the already existing global problems, something is horribly wrong. This kind of argumentation cannot be universalized. Say, it isn't morally correct to suppress fundamental individual rights even if it would be of global benefit.

It can be a utilitarian PoV, much like Singer himself utilizes to justify abortion. Note that Singer simply attacks the statement usually used by right to live activists "It is wrong to kill an innocent human being". He argues that it is not necessarily wrong to kill a innocent a human being. Interesting from a man who judges the rest of the humankind for the fact it does not donates to the poor, but nevertheless, utilitarian philosophy is valid, and mainstream in philosophy of morality and ethics :P

 

[Payton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q95kX_EP2Nk"

 

[alt]

This kind of cynical and twisted consequentialism has nothing to do with morality.

Then don't pontificate morality to me. And cynicism is a good thing I would have thought - why, this site has abundant cynism of many things, as well it should. But what did you find twisted ?

My experience in life has been that taking short term / long term, and micro / macro consequences into account, is alway a worthwhile, indeed an essential, thing to do. The most successful individuals, corporations, governments, do it.

If it leads you to the conclusion that leaving people to starve is a the morally correct decision because the alternative adds to the already existing global problems, something is horribly wrong.

It has been a consequence of natural selection / law, since as far back as you care to look, that life forms HAVE starved when resources ran out - a self balancing system.

In fact, I don't think I've even said that we should leave people to starve. I have posed a few questions, that neither you nor anybody else, have attempted to address. As unpalitable as they might be, they need to be addressed.

What is horribly wrong about contemplating the fact that if you save and make comfortable a large number of people, they will reproduce and present the next generation with a two or three fold problem ?

A problem that your next generation can ameliorate only through a two or three fold increase in such charity, or mass sterilisation ?

This kind of argumentation cannot be universalized. Say, it isn't morally correct to suppress fundamental individual rights even if it would be of global benefit.

I don't quite understand you last sentence.

edited - 1st line changed for clarification.

 

[alt]

If you give something freely where there is a need I believe it can only do good.

Much too general a statement. I could think of any number of occassions where giving something freely where it is need can only do bad.