They don't reckon they owe it. Singer thinks he owes his excess wealth to others just as much as you owe rent to the landlord. — Cuthbert

I take it as a hypothetical imperative. The virtue of charity is necessary for our psychological, emotional, and social well-being so in order to take care of ourselves we must genuinely care for others. We also have to be wise in our care giving or we'll end up wasting time and energy or even being taken advantage of. That's where prudence comes in, the mother of all virtues.

Singer's argument is that our first moral duty is to maximise welfare. If we are rich we can do this by giving to the poor. Therefore we are obliged to give. Giving is a duty not a mere virtue. And there is no distinction between the distant poor and the nearby poor or between our own family and strangers.

Jesus's idea I think was that how we treat God's people is how we treat God; and all people are God's without distinction. I'd say the 'no matter who' and 'without distinction' aspect is similar. But Jesus does not seem to have been interested in redistribution of wealth in order to maximise welfare, despite the objections of some his disciples - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_Jesus

Singer's argument is that our first moral duty is to maximise welfare. If we are rich we can do this by giving to the poor. Therefore we are obliged to give. Giving is a duty not a mere virtue. — Cuthbert

Either way reducing poverty is in almost everyone's best interest. Poverty creates a lot of problems that affect all of us.

I'm not so sure. If I buy the t-shirt for £2.50 and give nothing to charity then I'm winning. It costs me to give £7.50 to charity. A cost is a loss and a loss is against my interest.

I'm not so sure. If I buy the t-shirt for £2.50 and give nothing to charity then I'm winning. — Cuthbert

Maybe in a very narrow sense, but ultimately you're creating problems for yourself that will end up costing you a lot more than the difference of the fair price for that shirt. There's narrow self interest and there's the bigger picture, enlightened self interest can save us a lot of trouble and it's usually win-win.

I'm fully persuaded that we should give to charity and also believe that if nobody gave to charity then life would be worse for us all. But still the most *profitable* (not the best) thing for any individual is to freeload on the charitable giving of others, to take all the benefits of social cohesion and to pay none of the costs.

But still the most *profitable* (not the best) thing for any individual is to freeload on the charitable giving of others, to take all the benefits of social cohesion and to pay none of the costs. — Cuthbert

OK, but that's still shortsighted because it's detrimental to overall well-being. Free riding can also affect your social standing and end up costing more in the long run in terms of lost opportunities or privileges due to social sanctions.

But still the most *profitable* (not the best) thing for any individual is to freeload on the charitable giving of others, to take all the benefits of social cohesion and to pay none of the costs. — Cuthbert

There is a slope of diminishing returns here. Freeloading discourages the charitable giving of others, ultimately resulting in the coarsening of society.

But Jesus does not seem to have been interested in redistribution of wealth in order to maximize welfare... — Cuthbert

Right. Salvation won't be brought about by a redistribution of wealth. What is critical in Matthew 25:35-36 are acts of mercy and unconditional love freely performed. Salvation is one thing, economic and social policy is something else.

Slope of diminishing returns - yes, but still some returns and a variable slope. I think what I'm getting at is that there are not, on the one hand, 'normal people' who are self-regarding and don't care for others and then, on the other, 'enlightened people' (us, let us say) who are generous and compassionate. There's a trade-off for all of us and we are all pretty much in the same boat. Some are selfless saints and some are cynical egoists but most are wavering around between the extremes. Since we're bringing in some theology, then we're all sinners.

Since we're bringing in some theology, then we're all sinners. — Cuthbert

I get that it's not the way we like to think of ourselves but we are the kind of people who would crucify the son of God, and in a Jungian sense we do it every day. I'm not religious but the biblical account of human nature pretty much has us pegged.