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

[Greg Bernhardt]

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

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

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

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

Then there is diffusion of responsibility.

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

 

[waht]

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

I know that Singer could make such a statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DanP]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DanP]

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

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

 

[ThomasT]

Because this is the Philosophy forum, allow me to redefine the argument in a logical way and see what you think

P1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter or medical care are bad

P2. If it is within your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

P3. By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.

C1. Therefore if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

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

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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

Great, tell me how.

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

 

[ThomasT]

Great, tell me how.

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

There's no way to track your contribution.

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

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

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

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There's no way to track your contribution.

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

 

[ThomasT]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andre]

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

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

 

[DanP]

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

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

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

 

[Zarqon]

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

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


From another point of view, imagine two scenarios:

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

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

Which of these two scenarios is the moral choice?

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

 

[cobalt124]

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

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

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

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

So it is raising to status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kote]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which of these two scenarios is the moral choice?

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

 

[akd_dka]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cobalt124]

If you give it away, along with all other unnecessary items to the point of bare necessities, you openly become an abject slave who works hard for other people, often sacrificing things you love, and spending less time with your family, eating less healthy foods, opting for a cheaper health insurance, you thereby become poorer and taking your loved ones with you.

Depends on how you do it. It doesn't have to be like that.

It is a emergent system out of a good economy.

It's possible that what Sanger is suggesting could be as well.

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

We can't go back to that, it's clearly unsustainable with our current populations. I don't see this as sacrificing as much as giving. And the feeling of giving something needed freely is far better than the feeling someone gets from owning a possession. I haven't answered why we don't do this, but a change in perspective on how the problem is seen could help.

 

[DanP]

Similarly individuals helping each other across the planet in the same way you would help someone in your own street could evolve into a better way of living individual lives and improved conditions for the whole of the world. So I think Sanger has a valid point, on the individual level, and possibly wider.

I don't think such a society can ever evolve into an ESS. It would be too vulnerable to "predator" genes who would simply thrive in such a society.

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

Yes. Social forces modulate this behavior, but do not cause it. Biologic factors also modulate it. If you are interested in references, open up a thread
and Ill be glad to share more details.

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

Yes. Access to females for men for example. There is a great deal of literature in psychology on status as one of the factors in attraction of females toward males. this behavior have been studied well, and it appears to be a universal behavior across all cultures. In effect you have (at least technically), the possibility to produce more offspring. If you consider the fact that humankind is half-way between tournament species and a pair bonding species, and that men are competing on females in the vast majority of cases, you see that status seeking behaviors are highly adaptive.

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

Yes, but the choice it is not made by too many humans, the status quo today is highly different of the world you evoke, and I believe it will be for a very long time. You can't be a warrior in every possible war. You have to choose a front :P

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

We can't be responsible for everything and everyone. It;s an utilitarian point of view, if you will, but is realistic.

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

Yes. It wouldn't be in equilibrium.

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

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

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

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.

One was the beloved archkiller Chairman Mao:

On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written, the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted.

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

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

What the heck is a free choice ?

Humans come with a part of the brain called the pre-frontal cortex which is one of the latest parts of the brain to evolve, and which appears to be developed completely in a human only about the age of 25. It is implicated in ( among others) in executive decision making, cognitive behaviors , and social behaviors.

This part of the brain offers us a very wide range of decision making and expressing social behaviors. Yet the PFC doesn't not have total overriding capabilities over the limbic system of the brain, the sit of so many interesting behaviors, like sexual behavior, aggression, empathy, fear,reward and instant gratification.

The behavior you exhibit from an executive decision making process will always be modulated by the limbic system of the brain. So no, you do not have "free will" in the absolute religious and philosophical sense. It;s a permanent tug-o-war inside of you, played by various regions of the brain and the ropes are neurotransmitters. What you have is a still is enormous capacity for executive decisions.

Given the neurological connections between the components of limbic system and PFC, it is highly unlikely that free will in it's absolute, philosophical sense, exists. But this doesn't mean that humans are creatures which are genetically determined. No. It only means that biology **modulates** our behaviors.

And if you want to add more to this mess of "free will", you can add the enormous effects of social forces (conformity, compliance, obedience, social identity, cultures of honor) and cognitive biases on modulating behaviors. Free choice:rofl: Yes. >>> The PFC, The nature, The society :P The good, The bad and The ugly.

 

[turbo]

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

It is for this reason (low administrative overhead) that my wife and I contribute regularly to the Salvation Army. When they have a new sudden need of support (Katrina, Haiti 'quake, etc) we supplement our annual support with generous individual donations to help jump-start the disaster relief.

The Salvation Army does an incredible amount of good work here at home, but everyone should know that they offer sponsorship programs that allow you to target regions and even individual children all over the world with your money. Rather than respond to the deluge of pleas for money from lots of charities, my wife and I decided that we trusted SA enough to direct all of our human-services/charity donations to them.

We are also supporting members of several environmental-protection/animal-conservation groups, but at a very small fraction (combined) of the contributions to SA. SA is very nice, and they don't deluge you with endless requests for money (those requests cost money and add to overhead). They know that we are regular contributors, and the only time we get an additional plea for help is when they are faced with a natural disaster. That's OK.

 

[DanP]

TO lighten up the thread, I present

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0BrdMi-oyc&feature=fvsr

 

[SpeedOfDark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer[/url]
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

You're right and to a decent degree you are right, and there is almost no good excuse and anyone not accepting the fact is a cop-out.

Here's my cop-out, we can't feed the African people for ever there's to many of them and they need BILLIONS of dollars. They lack the resources to cultivate there own crops they can't sustain livestock and their dictator presidents and other warlords are trying to enslave them.

If I pay $5 right now or let's say a real number $1000, I may be able to send a child to school, feed him, and cloth him for let's say 6 1/2 - 8 years once that 8 years is up he's out of the money and things are right back where they started. Besides, if I give $1000 to a child in Africa Americans will probably take half that in some sort of wage to give to and vaccinate the African that I'm giving the money to.

That's the problem, we need to teach them how to cultivate not just give them food we need to take down some of there terrible governments and incorporate better more Capitalistic ones that we can mentor. 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.

I know it's also sad, because their people but civilizations in history have been wiped out and seeing as 99% of all species are extinct. While I can, I want to, and I would do everything in my power to help, when time comes mother nature will wipe you out.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

That's the problem, we need to teach them how to cultivate not just give them food

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

 

[turbo]

That's the problem, we need to teach them how to cultivate not just give them food we need to take down some of there terrible governments and incorporate better more Capitalistic ones that we can mentor. 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.

We need to teach better agricultural processes, and we need to support the distribution of seed of plants that pollinate freely. Allowing money to flow to projects that use GMO seed is counterproductive because farmers can't save their own seed - they are locked into begging for seed year after year. Monsanto is happy. Traditional farmers are screwed.

Next, clean water is not a cut-and-dried problem. When people are displaced through pressures of war, drought, whatever, access to clean water and sustainable sanitation techniques often fail. We don't want to see mass die-offs due to diarrheal diseases, but that's a natural consequence of herding people into places with limited natural resources.

 

[Pythagorean]

I remember hearing a discussion from aid workers who said that too much money/materials doesn't help a lot if they don't have the human resources to manage it (ie it gets stolen, lost, and wasted).

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

 

[waht]

Depends on how you do it. It doesn't have to be like that.It's possible that what Sanger is suggesting could be as well.

We can't go back to that, it's clearly unsustainable with our current populations. I don't see this as sacrificing as much as giving. And the feeling of giving something needed freely is far better than the feeling someone gets from owning a possession. I haven't answered why we don't do this, but a change in perspective on how the problem is seen could help.

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.

We have discussed that this just an 'ideal' case, but it set the tone for this thread.

 

[baywax]

Unless I can deliver the care/cash myself, without a middle "man" in the middle, I don't feel confident in OXFAM or RED CROSS or any of the lesser NGO's abilities to keep their grubby little fingers out of the collection pot and pass 100 percent of the benefit of my cash along to a person in need.

This may be a paranoid reaction on my part but, some of the recent activities that have been reported re: Red Cross, Unicef, etc... have shaken my faith in the motives of the NGO.

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.

My choices in purchases can make a difference as well. There are big companies that have the resources to either track their support payments through a third party or make the effort to supply the medical teams or others on their own behalf. I tend to seek out this type of company when making a purchase.

The odd thing is that a buddhist would say that all these at risk people are experiencing karma from an earlier life and would let it go at that... with "compassion". This is the sort of thing that freaks me out about "all knowingness".

There are such simple things we can do or selectively support to change the course of those people in dire straights. For example, the iodine program set up by the Rotary Club here. Just a few really fun, extravagant fund raisers went into funding decades of iodine administration in underdeveloped nations.

 

[a4mula]

This has nothing to do with wealth or lack thereof. This is a direct referendum on individuality and personal responsibility. By accepting the responsibility of another you are not only robbing them of the ability to provide for themselves, but also the incentive and experience needed next time.

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.

I also find it beyond hypocritical for the author of the book to make the statements reflected here and then publish a for-profit book. By his very own definition the purchase of said book is non-essential and therefore immoral. How much morality can be found knowingly leading others into such a trap.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but you are then also implying that doctors should not help cure sick people nor should we help people who experience a disaster (flood, volcano, fires). After all we should let natural selection do it's work and not interfere.

I also find it beyond hypocritical for the author of the book to make the statements reflected here and then publish a for-profit book. By his very own definition the purchase of said book is non-essential and therefore immoral. How much morality can be found knowingly leading others into such a trap.

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.

 

[DanP]

It is meant to challenge us in thinking about our obligations to helping those trapped in extreme poverty.

There is nothing to think of, for there are no obligations. Only options. Not that it's not funny to disagree with Singer on pf.com. Like I said before, it's golden if you help others from 3rd world countries , and it doesn't even matter if you have ulterior reasons or not. The deed remains. But it's not a responsibility of yours , nor an obligation.

 

[DanP]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but you are then also implying that doctors should not help cure sick people nor should we help people who experience a disaster (flood, volcano, fires). After all we should let natural selection do it's work and not interfere.

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".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There is nothing to think of, for there are no obligations. Only options.

DanP I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Given the argument I hashed out into the three premises in which I believe you must follow to remain moral. Sure you have the option to not give, but then you are immoral.

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.

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

 

[DanP]

Sure you have the option to not give, but then you are immoral.
Then I sincerely hope "my side" is winning :D

Greg, please answer this: With what power, give by who, you judge morality or judge me, (to go personal since you used the "you") as a immoral being ?

Divine ? If you answer yes, I can understand normative morality. Else is a null point, given that we humans judge everything in social context: killing, cheating, exploitation of others (even modern forms) and so on. Remember, we award medals to killers, if the arena happens to be Iraq, Bosnian, Afghanistan and so on. And rightly so, they do deserve those medals.

Society ? As I hinted in this thread, society considers donations optional. Your society and mine would rather buy an iPhone than donate. In descriptive ethics, morality of donations is optional.

Im very interested in your answer. I would like to hear it.

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

You and I will be long gone and probably only a subject to the anthropology of the future
when one will be able to say whose side is winning.

 

[cobalt124]

For me a core issue is still short term solutions vs. long term ones...


From another point of view, imagine two scenarios:

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

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

Which of these two scenarios is the moral choice?

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.

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

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

I missed that too. It's less of a matter of trusting that good will come from it than I thought.

I don't think such a society can ever evolve into an ESS. It would be too vulnerable to "predator" genes who would simply thrive in such a society.

Yes. Social forces modulate this behavior, but do not cause it. Biologic factors also modulate it. If you are interested in references, open up a thread
and Ill be glad to share more details.

I think I'll do that, because I'm not convinced that the science should have the emphasis you are giving it, though your last post has caused me pause for thought. Thankyou.

Yes. Access to females for men for example...

Again, I think you are overemphasizing it's importance.

Yes, but the choice it is not made by too many humans, the status quo today is highly different of the world you evoke, and I believe it will be for a very long time. You can't be a warrior in every possible war. You have to choose a front :P

People can choose to consume, they can equally choose to give.

We can't be responsible for everything and everyone. It;s an utilitarian point of view, if you will, but is realistic.

What do you mean by a utilitarian point of view? You wouldn't have to be responsible for everyone, just give where it is needed. You are not responsible for General Motors when you buy an SUV.

To be continued...

 

[DanP]

Again, I think you are overemphasizing it's importance.

Perhaps :P Perhaps not. Look around you. What do you see ?

People can choose to consume, they can equally choose to give.

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

 

[baywax]

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".

On the contrary:

Life began when complex molecules came together in cooperation, to perform the functions that we now consider to be characteristics of life.

Cooperation therefore preceded evolution. We do not have to look to evolution to explain the origin of cooperation. It undoubtedly underwent further development through evolution when different forms of cooperation came into being, but cooperation as a concept is linked to life itself, not to evolution.

Cooperation is a form of goodness, but how prevalent is it in nature? Well, we see cooperation between molecules, between cells, between organs, between organisms, between groups, and between groups of groups. How much cooperation do we need to see before conceding its significance? How blind do you have to be to ignore cooperation as a factor in evolution? And it’s not hard to see that once cooperation was pulled into the evolutionary process and evolved into different forms, that it’s just one small step to altruism in the accepted meaning of the word, that is, kindness for its own sake. One small step that is, when a particular condition is satisfied.

Acts of kindness occur when people (and other animals) see themselves as being part of a greater entity. It is that reality that the advocates for individualism cannot accept. If organisms see themselves as being part of a greater entity, then that’s all that’s needed for group-based trends to appear. And it doesn’t matter what their genes think about it at all!

http://www.science20.com/gadfly/altruism_its_origin_its_evolution_its_discontents

And for some reason unbeknownst to many the altruism shown in an inter-species context apparently supports the survival and well being of all species involved... as is seen in symbiotic relationships like lichen or even between a dog and some kittens.

 

[EnumaElish]

I think Singer's brand of humanism is a derivative of the Rawlsian theory of justice, specifically, his concept of the veil of ignorance, whereby "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like."

Singer makes it more personal and therefore more provocative. Possibly more practical.

To expand a little, imagine the roles in the global society reversed: in this alternative universe, all PF'ers are born as poor, starving children. What would they then consider moral?