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

[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.

 

[alt]

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.

My bolded - Military rule is always a concern, I reckon. Best of intentions at the moment, though anything can happen.

And did you see the news recently ? Iranian protestors starting the same movement as in Egypt. This one might be brutal. I don't see the Iranian parliament / military going 'softly softly' .. though this probably deserves a thread of it's own.

Anyhow, as always, you make interesting and pertinent points.

 

[nismaratwork]

My bolded - Military rule is always a concern, I reckon. Best of intentions at the moment, though anything can happen.

And did you see the news recently ? Iranian protestors starting the same movement as in Egypt. This one might be brutal. I don't see the Iranian parliament / military going 'softly softly' .. though this probably deserves a thread of it's own.

Anyhow, as always, you make interesting and pertinent points.

Thanks alt, and yeah... in the Egypt thread Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, and more. It's not just ugly, it's POST-Orwellian!

 

[alt]

Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110220/ts_afp/scienceuspopulationfood

A snippet ..

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

I suppose family planning programs are good - in developing nations so as to forestall population explosions .. not that they have ever really worked, mind ..

But how much worse, and more difficult do we make it, by aiding third world nations to develope in the first place ?

 

[cobalt124]

Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.

I think this is a problem for every nation, not just the developing world, like global warming...

I suppose family planning programs are good - in developing nations so as to forestall population explosions .. not that they have ever really worked, mind ..

...both of which are not being tackled for precisely that reason, if all nations are in it together, we may stand a chance of progress.

But how much worse, and more difficult do we make it, by aiding third world nations to develope in the first place ?

Isn't the argument that as nations develop, population growth decreases, and so development would be a benefit in this instance?

 

[DanP]

like global warming...

What global warning ?

...both of which are not being tackled for precisely that reason, if all nations are in it together, we may stand a chance of progress.

Or we would loose money in black holes, money which would be put to better use to improve the situation in our homelands.

Isn't the argument that as nations develop, population growth decreases, and so development would be a benefit in this instance?

The only way to develop those countries is to engage them in international trade. Not to spoon feed them.

 

[cobalt124]

Good to see you back DanP, thought you'd gone for good!

 

[cobalt124]

What global warning ?

Maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms. Posters have stated that certain so called solutions have not worked and I agree. I'm saying that some of the reason may be that they are not dealt with as a global issue by all nations, but as a problem for "the developed world", or whoever.

Or we would loose money in black holes, money which would be put to better use to improve the situation in our homelands.

That doesn't seem to address the issue.

The only way to develop those countries is to engage them in international trade. Not to spoon feed them.

Well if we are doing that already (engaging in international trade), I would say that it is not working, so would there be any way to improve the situation so that it could slow population increases?

 

[DanP]

Maybe we shouldn't open that can of worms. Posters have stated that certain so called solutions have not worked and I agree. I'm saying that some of the reason may be that they are not dealt with as a global issue by all nations, but as a problem for "the developed world", or whoever.

But is their problem, not ours. You can't help those who don't want to be helped. What do you propose, to wage war against every government which refuses to embrace the western way of life ?

That doesn't seem to address the issue.

Sure it does. It will ensure or at least make big strides towards ensuring we will have our homelands much better prepared to take care of their own, when the time comes.

Well if we are doing that already (engaging in international trade), I would say that it is not working, so would there be any way to improve the situation so that it could slow population increases?

It's working. It's our superior science and economy which saves the ones who would otherwise perish. Western science. Western money which got put in agricultural research.
Globalization is the answer. And everyone of the citizens of the 3rd world should accept it and welcome it, because is the only thing which will deliver them.

 

[CronoSpark]

A very complicated question. I've skipped over the entire thread, as there is too many posts to read, so I hope I am not repeating another person's argument. I present hypothetical scenario where we only worried about the essentials. This might be good given the society we live in, but after some deeper thought I realized that everything is much more interconnected than I originally imagined.

For example, let's say everyone of us did not go to the movies to watch the latest show. This means that we will in effect reduce the amount spent on projection/TV/cinematic/cut jobs/etc..., resulting in less technological advances in the film industry, which could affect other sectors (touch screens, etc). People who were inspired by specific movies to develop ground-breaking technologies might have also not have those eureka moments if movies never existed. Of course this is an exaggerated case, but everything seems to be tied together. Even the items that you'd think are the least essential could in the end be tied to very vital sources of income for research in important technologies.

So, in a very strange way, it could be possible that if we spent only on the essentials and gave money to save other people's lives, we delay the progress on developing ... let's say, an infinite energy source, or a way to mass produce cheap fresh water by 5+ years, which could result in even more deaths. But of course, on an ethical level, if I am able, I would personally try to help save others somehow.

There probably is some term or book on this already, but just sharing my thoughts.

 

[sourlemon]

Lolz, I got to page 5 and gave up. But I'll put in my 2 cents anyway.

To me, the problem with Singer argument is that he assumes if we run into trouble someone will help us. So suppose I follow Singer advice and spend on "unnecessary" things, then I'm morally doing the right thing. Now, let's talk about unnecessary things. Of course junk food or an extra cars are unnecessary things. So let's cut that. But then think about it, do I really need the internet to live? Is that really necessary? Ok. Cut that. What about this apartment that I'm living in? Do I need a $900 apartment? If I move into a poorer neighborhood, I could save at least $300 in which I could donate to charities. How about my savings? My health care? Wouldn't I give those away if I see a child drowning? Why should I eat three meals a day I could save a child by having two?

Where do you draw the line?

And if I have no saving, what happen when I get fire? How long can I live on unemployment? And what happen when I can't find a job after the unemployment period? I would become homeless and depend on soup kitchen to feed me. Now I have to depend on other generosity to save me. But what if they don't, I'm in big trouble aren't I? Or what if they don't feel my case is bad enough because saving a child from a disease is more important than feeding me? I'm screwed then! Not only that, by continuously thinking that I can save a child by not buying a candy will cause me great harm because I'll continuously have guilt when I buy on unnecessary things. This will cause stress, unhappiness, and maybe depression. And who knows, because of that stress/depression, I may acquire some sickness. Now I have to use other people money to cure my sickness, instead keeping myself healthy and make money to save others.

I understand Singer's point of view, but I think it's ok to spend on unnecessary things. It makes people happy and I don't think it's right to stop someone from being happy if their happiness isn't causing anyone any harm. I don't see how it's morally wrong to buy a candy. It makes me happy and gives people a job. I worked hard for my money, why shouldn't I spend it the way I want to? I could also argue that if I invest in myself, I can be a better help to those people in need. For example, if I have candy at my desk, I work harder because I have sugar which makes me happier. This in turn will lead to me getting a promotion which allow me to have more money to give back to those in need.

Take Warren Buffett for example. If he didn't save his money and invest, would he be the billionaire he is today? Would he be able to give that much back? Or if all who feel it's morally wrong to spend money on yourself contribute to charity, would it be as much as what Buffet has given? I doubt it.

We keep thinking being poor is bad because you can't afford internet or a car. But that's not necessary true. My family was really poor to the point that my parent couldn't buy me a banana. I had about 3/4 pairs of clothes. But I had a great childhood. I didn't have a flu shot every year (if ever), but I hardly remember being sick. Sometimes I think we do more harm than good by pushing our standard to them. It's like giving them the internet for one day then take it away. If you haven't given that to them, then they wouldn't know what they're missing. So is it really a bad thing by not giving what we have to them? I'm not saying that it is bad or it isn't. But it's something to think about.

I also agree with DanP that those parents should really be careful about giving births to children they can't take care off. It's totally irresponsible. And so come the argument of what is right? Which one benefit more? Should we give the children their shots or spend the money on educating people so they can stop having kids they can't take care of. Don't you think we save more lives by educating the parents? I'm just posing the question. (I actually side with giving shots to the children because I just don't have the heart to say no to them.)

PS written this at 2-3 am in the morning, so half of it is probably incomprehensible.