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

[alt]

cobalt 124;

I'm not taking it that personally.

OK - let’s take it collectively
“any money spent on non essential items and services by any group of people, corporations, governments, etc, is morally wrong”
Nope ! - Still sounds odious to me.

Morality and feeling and good intention aside, I think he has a point.

You can‘t put morality aside - it‘s an essential element of his statement.

It seems more and more I am missing the point of this thread. I latched onto the usefulness of the act in question, rather than the morality of it, which are both under discussion here.

No wonder you are missing the point. You are trying to read 'out' (as opposed to read in) Singers ‘morally wrong’ accusations.

Based on my reading the Wikipedia article on Peter Singer, like he seems to have done, I've not gone too much into the practicalities of this, which given what has been achieved by people so far, I don't see as imsurmountable. So I think it is valid to discuss what Singer is suggesting, and see where it can go, without necessarily going into practicalities, or morality, or feeling, or good intention.

Feel free. But you can't extricate Singer from his 'morally wrong', no matter how hard you try. Only he can do that.

Well, I was tarring you with a "god complex" brush too re "them and us", because that is how you seem to be coming across. I may be wrong.

Oh, that's OK. Keep and bear in mind however, that all I have done here , or rather, all I've intended to do, is ask some questions that naturally pop into my deific (Heh) brain, every time I see those 'save a family in India' adverts. Such questions as I’ve iterated here several times.

Any scenario anyone cares to come up with, will have to consider population control at some point, so like any situation where a decision like this has to be made, let's hope no one is playing God.

Disagree - there would be numerous scenarios where population control would not have to be considered. Surely you can think of some ?

I confess to being confused, I don't know whether you actually mean this, or you are being sarcastic, or what? But if it is the case, then it is possible that what Singer is suggesting can benefit all round? Too commie?

No, I wasn't been sarcastic. What's confusing ? I said that material assets are not always a measure of happiness. How does this support Singers position ? I would have thought the opposite to be the case, in that people in poverty and sometimes extreme poverty, can be as happy as a Westerner - if not happier. No need therefore, to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc.

I read your quote, not the link. Where are the good intentions in discrimination ?

Well, you should read the link. It's very informative, and shows how the highest caste, discriminate against the lowest. Perhaps you should start at the top of these societies by educating those in the highest castes into doing more for their countrymen. Did you ever think of that ?

Where are the good intentions in discrimination ?

What ARE you talking about ?

I’m hoping education would allow people to make more informed choices rather than westernise them, but I take your point. No-one can be the boss in this. the consequences are on the whole planet.

People have been making appropriate choices for millennia, from what they abstract from the world around them, and from the natural forces and recourses available to them, without hanging by a thread in anticipation of your education. Populations, societies, nations have risen, fallen, risen, fallen .. are you going to teach them how to rise and not fall ?

Or do you propose something even more bizarre, i.e., feed them, make them well and capable, but them keep them in some sort of stasis, so that they can’t overly reproduce, over consume, become a threat to you, etc .. a stasis according to your image of what’s right for them ?

I’m disputing the success of governments, companies, and individuals. What is being measured to determine their success, and who is doing the measuring?

I think I'm getting a measure of what you're on about here. This part of the conversation came about form you saying that consequences should never be considered, to which I replied that they should be. You’ve bought this round, and round .. Now your above comment, seems to be going in a different path again. From disputing the consideration of consequences, to disputing success. It seems you have a lot of baggage to unpack.

Even my dog considers the consequences of his actions. I too, consider the consequences of my actions, as do larger entities.

If you're against free enterprise and capitalism, in favour of a more socialist / communist order, don't speak in tongues - just say so, although, perhaps, you should start a new thread, as that would be moving quite away from this one.

Unconditional for the individual giving, the right reasons being it will make things better, possibly for everyone.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think there is a rational, secular way to do what Singer asks in his question, and I think it could improve the lives of a lot of people, and I'd like to find out if, or how right or wrong,that idea may be.

That's nice. Good luck with your quest. Let us know what you find out.

We might dispute your success, or your measure thereof, though by your earlier prescription, that should be of no consequence to you.

 

[EnumaElish]

In last weekend's WSJ, Singer wrote a column as part of an op-ed debate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074333552233782.html

Sometimes we should choose to protect the environment and the nonhuman animals that depend on it, even if that denies economic opportunities to some people living in extreme poverty.

He then goes on to claim that cost-benefit analysis, or economics in general, cannot deal with these issues. I think he makes a couple of valid criticisms about the imputed value of human lives and the oft-assumed levels of discount rates; but in the process he fails to make a distinction between positive and normative economics. Worse, I think he does it intentionally to deflect attention from an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position.

 

[alt]

In last weekend's WSJ, Singer wrote a column as part of an op-ed debate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576074333552233782.html
He then goes on to claim that cost-benefit analysis, or economics in general, cannot deal with these issues. I think he makes a couple of valid criticisms about the imputed value of human lives and the oft-assumed levels of discount rates; but in the process he fails to make a distinction between positive and normative economics. Worse, I think he does it intentionally to deflect attention from an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position

Interesting article - and I agree with your above (especially my underlined). From the article ..

But this concern for the poor appears to be in tension with the need to protect our environment. Is there any point in saving the lives of people who will continue to have more children than they can feed? Don't rising populations in developing countries increase the pressure on forests and other ecosystems? Then there is climate change. How would the world cope if everyone were to become affluent and match our per capita rate of greenhouse gas emissions?

In the above, he says what I've been saying all along here. Then he adds more fruit to the cake by 'developed nations have fewer children and consume less' .. LOL.

News flash - China just introduced a lottery for new motor vehicle purchases. No longer can the average 'developed' Chinaman/woman buy a new car at will - they have to participate in a state lottery to win the right to do so. New car sales dropped by 60% - 70%.

 

[cobalt124]

an ethical unsustainabiliy that is inherent in his own philosophical position.

Well aware that I am coming across as a supporter of Singers moral stance here, and that my next question reinforces this notion, are you referring to anything here that has not been discussed in the thread so far? Just interested, I haven't got a position on this that I feel the need to defend.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well aware that I am coming across as a supporter of Singers moral stance here, and that my next question reinforces this notion, are you referring to anything here that has not been discussed in the thread so far? Just interested, I haven't got a position on this that I feel the need to defend.

As a casual poster and reader on this thread, I have to say that I think you've been getting your butt handed to you by literally everyone here who has addressed your points. Maybe, and I'm just floating this as a concept, you shouldn't trust your feelings as to what you should or should not defend.

You're sharing your thoughts with others, which indicates that you do care what others think and believe; you're failing terribly at making your case, or that of Singer. You're not really coming across as rational or ethical, just reactive and misanthropic. If that's what you're trying to communicate, success!... but if not, as someone who is mostly reading this, you really have a TON to defend.

 

[EnumaElish]

The companion article to Singer's, by Bjorn "The Skeptical Environmentalist"/"Cool It" Lomborg: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...od=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_TheSaturdayEssay

... and here's a link to Save the Children's http://sca.savethechildren.se/Middle_East_and_North_Africa/What-we-do/Newborn-and-Child-Survival-Campaign/ .

 

[alt]

The companion article to Singer's, by Bjorn "The Skeptical Environmentalist"/"Cool It" Lomborg: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...od=WSJ_article_RecentColumns_TheSaturdayEssay

... and here's a link to Save the Children's http://sca.savethechildren.se/Middle_East_and_North_Africa/What-we-do/Newborn-and-Child-Survival-Campaign/ .

The more I read of or from this Singer fellow, the more he seems like a real fruitcake.

And to think - he's an Aussie ? .. sigh ..

 

[nismaratwork]

The more I read of or from this Singer fellow, the more he seems like a real fruitcake.

And to think - he's an Aussie ? .. sigh ..

We agree... which probably means that he's DEFINITELY a fruitcake.

As for AU.. relax, popular culture aside we all know you're a developed nation in the modern world; one fool can't tarnish that.

 

[alt]

As a casual poster and reader on this thread, I have to say that I think you've been getting your butt handed to you by literally everyone here who has addressed your points. Maybe, and I'm just floating this as a concept, you shouldn't trust your feelings as to what you should or should not defend.

You're sharing your thoughts with others, which indicates that you do care what others think and believe; you're failing terribly at making your case, or that of Singer. You're not really coming across as rational or ethical, just reactive and misanthropic. If that's what you're trying to communicate, success!... but if not, as someone who is mostly reading this, you really have a TON to defend.

I see your points, but a little harsh perhaps ? Anyway, he doesn't seem a misanthrope to me. Somewhat confused perhaps - or reticent to carry the point ?

Cobalt - I hope my direct manner, and Nismars perhaps more direct, doesn't deter you from making your points. I may not agree with what you said so far, but I respect the fact that you have a view and hopefully, you might like to make it more clearly.

Right .. wrong .. doesn't matter. I've been right, I've been wrong .. the discourse is what's important.

Again, please don't misinterpret impatience and direct talk, for aggression or ill will.

 

[cobalt124]

...you shouldn't trust your feelings as to what you should or should not defend...

Yes. I'm open minded, and how I feel about this (and many other things), I'm now more open minded about.

...misanthropic...

I'm not a misanthrope because if I was I wouldn't be airing views to the world at large in a reasonable (if irrational) manner, unless I had an axe to grind or a point to prove, which I don't.

...or reticent to carry the point?...

More logical argument needed. OK.

Cobalt - I hope my direct manner, and Nismars perhaps more direct, doesn't deter you from making your points.?...

No way. I'm enjoying it.

Right .. wrong .. doesn't matter. I've been right, I've been wrong .. the discourse is what's important...

That's one of the main reasons I am here.

Again, please don't misinterpret impatience and direct talk, for aggression or ill will.

I haven't. And won't.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes. I'm open minded, and how I feel about this (and many other things), I'm now more open minded about.



I'm not a misanthrope because if I was I wouldn't be airing views to the world at large in a reasonable (if irrational) manner, unless I had an axe to grind or a point to prove, which I don't.



More logical argument needed. OK.



No way. I'm enjoying it.



That's one of the main reasons I am here.



I haven't. And won't.

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

 

[alt]

Yes. I'm open minded, and how I feel about this (and many other things), I'm now more open minded about.



I'm not a misanthrope because if I was I wouldn't be airing views to the world at large in a reasonable (if irrational) manner, unless I had an axe to grind or a point to prove, which I don't.



More logical argument needed. OK.



No way. I'm enjoying it.



That's one of the main reasons I am here.



I haven't. And won't.

Cool ! Hope to hear from you soon. This sure is an interesting subject.

 

[alt]

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

Nismar ?

Now who said this in a nearby place not long ago ? Hmmm ?

Oh, and I enjoy 'spirited debate' so much, that sometimes I lose track of WHY, in the sheer joy of the debate itself.

 

[cobalt124]

OK Back to it. I created most of this before my previous post.

OK - let’s take it collectively
“any money spent on non essential items and services by any group of people, corporations, governments, etc, is morally wrong”
Nope ! - Still sounds odious to me.

You can‘t put morality aside - it‘s an essential element of his statement.

No wonder you are missing the point. You are trying to read 'out' (as opposed to read in) Singers ‘morally wrong’ accusations.

Feel free. But you can't extricate Singer from his 'morally wrong', no matter how hard you try. Only he can do that.

Yes, I'm off topic. I will start another thread. I didn't enter it to defend Singers moral stance, which is his business, I'm interested in the practicalities of the idea he is suggesting.

Oh, that's OK. Keep and bear in mind however, that all I have done here , or rather, all I've intended to do, is ask some questions that naturally pop into my deific (Heh) brain, every time I see those 'save a family in India' adverts. Such questions as I’ve iterated here several times.

Thankyou, I wasn't always sure where you were coming from in this, good to know. I picked up on Singers idea last year sometime from a radio programme and it stuck with me. Then this thread was started. But I never picked up on the moral argument, just how/if it could work. I'm not a keen fan of how aid money is generated for the vulnerable, as I see it, people give money for the wrong reasons, and giving money is easy. It seems to me more is needed.

Disagree - there would be numerous scenarios where population control would not have to be considered. Surely you can think of some ?

The only form of population control I would see as acceptable is education (as self empowering) and contraception (as an individual choice).

No, I wasn't been sarcastic. What's confusing ? I said that material assets are not always a measure of happiness. How does this support Singers position ? I would have thought the opposite to be the case, in that people in poverty and sometimes extreme poverty, can be as happy as a Westerner - if not happier. No need therefore, to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc.

I see where you are coming from. I see a distinction between education (as self empowering) and "to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc."

Well, you should read the link. It's very informative, and shows how the highest caste, discriminate against the lowest. Perhaps you should start at the top of these societies by educating those in the highest castes into doing more for their countrymen. Did you ever think of that ?

I probably won't, from what you post about it, I don't think I'll learn anything new. I'm not western/capitalist bashing here...

What ARE you talking about ?

...hence I ask, specifically about the caste system, "Where are the good intentions in discrimination?". It will just make the situation worse.

...are you going to teach them how to rise and not fall?...

No.

...become a threat to you, etc...

I don't see any threat.

...according to your image of what’s right for them?...

According to an individuals image of what is right for themselves. I can't imagine a person having medically preventable premature death as an image of what is right for themselves.

I think I'm getting a measure of what you're on about here. This part of the conversation came about form you saying that consequences should never be considered, to which I replied that they should be. You’ve bought this round, and round .. Now your above comment, seems to be going in a different path again. From disputing the consideration of consequences, to disputing success. It seems you have a lot of baggage to unpack.

Then the question is "Whos consequences?". Success would be saving people from a medically preventable premature death, for a start.

...as do larger entities...

Individuals ultimately.

If you're against free enterprise and capitalism, in favour of a more socialist / communist order, don't speak in tongues - just say so, although, perhaps, you should start a new thread, as that would be moving quite away from this one.

Just for the record, I'm not against free enterprise and capitalism divorced from greed and corruption, and I have never been a socialist.

That's nice. Good luck with your quest.

It's not a quest, though it may have come across as one. I don't have the time for quests.

Let us know what you find out. We might dispute your success, or your measure thereof, though by your earlier prescription, that should be of no consequence to you.

I can't think of a better place to find out than here.

 

[cobalt124]

Your glee coming primarily from the act of discourse and not the social issue raised, is the very core of why it is not worth the argument or debate in the first place, and why you're more misanthropic than anything else. You're engaging publicly, but for your own amusement as you've made clear.

I said enjoy, not gleeful, not amused, and I'm not a misanthrope or a masochist. The debate is well worth it, the issue being how I go about that debate.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nismar ?

Now who said this in a nearby place not long ago ? Hmmm ?

Oh, and I enjoy 'spirited debate' so much, that sometimes I lose track of WHY, in the sheer joy of the debate itself.

True, but that's a natural reaction to debate, not the reason I engaged in the first place. In essence, the difference is that I might become sufficiently involved to lose track... I don't go in just swinging for the hell of it, for a bit of a thrill.

 

[nismaratwork]

I said enjoy, not gleeful, not amused, and I'm not a misanthrope or a masochist. The debate is well worth it, the issue being how I go about that debate.

This purely out of curiosity... masochist... in the old game of "one of these things is not like the other" that does stand out. The first three can be synergistic to bring you enjoyment... the latter is sexual pleasure through pain, or in general the concept of enjoying suffering. Personally, I think misanthropy and masochism are incompatible... you'd enjoy the misery and no longer be miserable. Yet another "Sesame Street" lesson, Oscar The Grouch says something along the lines of, "I hate X, which makes me happy! I hate being happy, which makes me sad, but that makes me happy... which makes me sad... which makes me happy!..." and so forth.

Sorry, I have Sesame Street on the brain... one of the nieces just loves the old runs of the show when Henson was alive. Still, it seems to suit the situation...

 

[cobalt124]

...I think misanthropy and masochism are incompatible...

I believe my statement was clear enough. What are you curious about?

 

[nismaratwork]

I believe my statement was clear enough. What are you curious about?

I'm curious why you added, "masochist", to the list of things you're not.

 

[cobalt124]

I'm curious why you added, "masochist", to the list of things you're not.

I thought you were taking issue with my enjoyment of this discussion. Not enjoying it would entail some form of masochism.

 

[nismaratwork]

I thought you were taking issue with my enjoyment of this discussion. Not enjoying it would entail some form of masochism.

No, that would be anhedonic, the inability to experience enjoyment... masochism is a paraphilia where you derive sexual excitement from the experience of physical pain. In less formal parlance, it refers to a kind of, "auto-erotic schadenfreude".

 

[cobalt124]

I'm using it in the colloquial sense "enjoyment of what appears to be painful or tiresome" from my dictionary.

 

[alt]

True, but that's a natural reaction to debate, not the reason I engaged in the first place. In essence, the difference is that I might become sufficiently involved to lose track... I don't go in just swinging for the hell of it, for a bit of a thrill.

That's cool. People engage in debate for any number of reasons I suppose. Eventually their motivations take second place to the substance of their debate.

---------------

Cobalt, seen your latest. I have some serious time constraints at the moment. Hope to reply in detail soon.

 

[BobG]

I bet if you had an option to give $10 to UNICEF out of your paycheck, few people would, even though that would raise probably $20+ billion every year if even half the population opted in.

I'm not sure about this. The Air Force (and probably other departments of the federal government, given the name) has the Combined Federal Campaign once a year where employees can sign up to donate a certain amount out of their paycheck for the charity of their choice. At least in the Air Force, it always had an extremely high participation rates (in 90% range), even if some of the participation was of the token variety (very small amount of money).

 

[EnumaElish]

Wow, never realized you are/were part of USAF, BobG! How exciting and prideful it must be, (and how nerve-wrecking for the ordinary man on the street, or the average internet user)!

You guys have really put your life "on the line" for many of us here, I guess, so "thank you!"

 

[alt]

The only form of population control I would see as acceptable is education (as self empowering) and contraception (as an individual choice).


I see where you are coming from. I see a distinction between education (as self empowering) and "to educate them, bring them up to a Western standard, etc."

Reading through your entire post, and in fact all posts in this thread, I believe the main issue that we haven't done to death is the one I've quoted from your post, above.

You presume you're going to educate them, self empower them, etc, and yet keep them from being abitious and keen to adopt the standards and affluence of the western world, and the associated consumption that comes with it.

And on top of that, you're going to educate them into adopting some form of birth control within their countries.

Both these proposals are IMO, naive .

I guess it remains for you to expound on just how this is going to be done.

 

[nismaratwork]

Reading through your entire post, and in fact all posts in this thread, I believe the main issue that we haven't done to death is the one I've quoted from your post, above.

You presume you're going to educate them, self empower them, etc, and yet keep them from being abitious and keen to adopt the standards and affluence of the western world, and the associated consumption that comes with it.

And on top of that, you're going to educate them into adopting some form of birth control within their countries.

Both these proposals are IMO, naive .

I guess it remains for you to expound on just how this is going to be done.

Agreed... it's like wanting to give birth by teleporting the baby out to avoid all of that "unpleasentness". Well.. that's part of the process, and while it can be mitigated to some degree, it still hurts.

Your point about stifling ambition seems to be key, and key to the Egyptian uprising. People seem throughout history (Londinium?) to tear everything down to be free, even if that means it will be untold generations before that freedom can yield a real structure.

 

[alt]

Agreed... it's like wanting to give birth by teleporting the baby out to avoid all of that "unpleasentness". Well.. that's part of the process, and while it can be mitigated to some degree, it still hurts.

Your point about stifling ambition seems to be key, and key to the Egyptian uprising. People seem throughout history (Londinium?) to tear everything down to be free, even if that means it will be untold generations before that freedom can yield a real structure.

Hi Nismar. GREAT to see you back.

The issue I've tried to canvass here, is - how do you make comfortable and empower, educate, etc, millions of people, and then keep them in a stasis of your choosing ? I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but I am saying that such questions needs to be thought through, and that answers need to be proffered by the proponents of such ideas.

 

[cobalt124]

Hi Nismar. GREAT to see you back.

Likewise. Pressed for time, hope to get a response in soon.

 

[nismaratwork]

Likewise. Pressed for time, hope to get a response in soon.

Thanks cobalt, I look forward to it, you keep me on my toes.

Alt: Thanks very much! I agree with what you're saying, and that's the dangerous nature of revultions... you tear down the capacity to gather and have those thoughts. Even the extreme elements are going to insist on a voice now, and they need to have it... but the military needs to guarantee they are only a VOICE. They can have an ambition, but it's shaped away from known dangerous (AQ, Hamas, Hezbollah) structures.

If you look at the history of Turkey, you can see the military first locking down to protect their new constitution (new quite a while ago), but NOT stifling the political process. Now we have the emergence of a moderate religious party that isn't trying to stone women or put them in sacks.

I think the stasis you reference needs to be both cultural, with people retaining a sense of their national identity without having to demonize another figure... and military. There is just no other institution in Egypt that has the power right now. In addition, I see it as a VERY good sign for the interim that the military leadership has promised to uphold all current treaties; to me that says radical elements are NOT running the show (yet), and there is real hope for a gradual transition over decades and more to a true democratic Egypt.

I don't know what a democratic Egypt looks like, and I doubt the Egyptians do either... as you say, that's going to be a very long and active debate in all sectors. To do that, there needs to be stability, but not Mubarak's brand of stability.