I'm going to make a very perverse argument which I do not believe, but which conceivably COULD be true.

It could be true that the money is better spent on enjoying it in a prosperous country rather than just extending a miserable life in an impoverished one.

A gift link to a version of the article in the NY Times. Singer's point seems obviously correct, but then, Western culture is entirely predicated on production and consumption of material goods. Without a massive change in outlook and ethos, could society as a whole re-orient itself to the equitable distribution of goods and services so as to ameliorate the conditions in under-developed nations?

I suppose I can see the virtue of personally committing oneself to a life of extreme simplicity and abandonment of possessions beyond the bare necessities, but what kind of impact would an individual's actions have, in the absence of a mass movement? And wouldn't you need to have those ideals and disciplines instilled at a young age to turn your back on the material standards associated with living in developed cultures?

Kudos to Singer for bringing these points out, but what does he think the implications ought to be?

I just reread the essay, and I have the same reaction now as I remember having when I first read it - that of incredulity towards his reference to moral duty and obligation. I have anti-realist intuitions when it comes to morality so all this talk of duty, obligation, etc, strikes me as nonsense. Where does this duty come from? How does it exist? Why does it have authority over me? Why should I care? The way I'm reading the article Singer is referring to moral duty in a moral realist sense - that of a stance/desire-independent authourative "force" that compels or binds you to act, regardless of your values or desires. I don't believe in this. And so his trying to make an analgous case between a duty to rescue a drowning child in a pond, and overseas starvation fails for me, as I don't even think there's a moral duty save the drowning child. I'd save the drowning child if I wanted to, and I'd donate to charity if I desired to as well. Neither are "morally obligatory" - there is no such thing. And maybe in the eyes of Singer this means I'm acting immorally because I don't want to impoverish myself to the point of marginal utility in order to improve the overall state of the world. So what? I care about my welfare more than I care about other people's, and I'm not responsible for the state of the world, or the negative welfare of other people that I didn't cause. Invoking "duty" to compell me to act against my self-interested desires* simply doesn't work.

*note also that my self-interested desires also include my desire, to a degree, for others to not suffer, hence I would save a drowning child if it were at little risk to myself and I do make a small amount of charitable donations. The point being it is my desires that I act upon, and not out of a sense of duty or obligation - the invoking of which has no affect on me.

There is more to this argument because the behavior in question is something that, by itself, is not immoral. At least not what we could call the ten commandments. It is not like murder, stealing, rape, violence, or mistreatment of others -- actions that are directly done to others.

Consumerism is a societal culture. In the US and other wealthy countries, billionaires could spend 150M on a yacht without consequences. The prevailing mentality is, money is a private asset.

The notion of "appropriateness" is sometimes invited into the mix of moral arguments. JS Mill, for sure, went into the details of what's offensive when it comes to the public domain where other people exist and whose rights could be at risk of being violated. Note that he, too, implies that there is a direct recipient of one's offensive action -- there is that connection and identifiable actors.

One way to argue under this school of thought is to ask what right is being violated if I go and buy an expensive 3-piece suit or throw a $500k party for my closest friends?

(I sympathize with Singer -- we have the ethics of care, of a sense of community which doesn't seem to fit with the picture of starving people).

There is a sort of reverse collective action problem here (I am blanking on the proper term). The argument might work for an individual or family. It can't work for everyone. If everyone stops all "unnecessary" economic activity in the developed world those economies will collapse, massively affecting global trade, agricultural production, vaccine production and development, etc. This would probably also reduce global stability and security. And then this would probably have a net negative impact on the developing world, both in the short and long term

His argument is just a whine. It's not really an argument. I fail to see how it requires actual rebuttals?

I think he could be right but then again, I think we allow people the right to do what they want within limits. Is everyone realistically moral all the time and do we need to pretend that? Can we tolerate that?

If you come across a child drowning and you have merely to reach out your hand and get your arm wet to save her, do you have a duty to do so? Are you acting immorally if you let her die?

If you come across a child drowning and you have merely to reach out your hand and get your arm wet to save her, do you have a duty to do so? Are you acting immorally if you let her die? — RogueAI

This is an example of Ethics of Care. Similar to the OP.

Should we reject benevolence? Why or why not? Because in EoC, there really isn't a direct harm, rather, we accrue trust, respect, and kindness for the present and future activities. I can't think of a reason for why we should not care about it.

I think we have a duty to save a drowning child in the scenario I talked about. Why does that duty fade the further away the child is? If I can easily save a child by flying to a pond and rescuing them, don't I have an obligation to do so? If I have extra money and could save a child by sponsoring one through Save the Children, don't I have a moral duty to do so? Singer makes good points.

His argument is fallacious. The entire argument is an argument from ignorance. Basically, he's saying that because he has seen evidence that donating money to charities leads to some lives being saved but have yet to see evidence of that happening when I buy unnecessary things that have no purpose other than to give me the sense of pleasure. Therefore, it's better to donate my money to charities. The lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean that it's better to donate my money.

If you come across a child drowning and you have merely to reach out your hand and get your arm wet to save her, do you have a duty to do so? Are you acting immorally if you let her die?

A perfect illustration of the fact that judging an action is incomplete without taking into account the consequences of not performing the action.

Thus, not saving the child is immoral since not reaching out one's arm carries no counter value that can outweigh the action of saving the child.

The OP's "giving to charity" example fails this test, as there are numerous positives associated with alternatives to where to spend one's money aside from giving to charity. Thus not giving every single discretionary dollar to charity is not immoral (even if giving to charity definitely saved lives, which in reality, is not actually proven).

Why are you typing this on your phone/laptop? Go sell it and donate the proceeds to starving children.

And yes locality matters.

Well, first, it would be hard to survive in my society without a phone, so this is not really luxury. Second, this is an ad hominem argument. I know I'm far from being an angel.

It could be true that the money is better spent on enjoying it in a prosperous country rather than just extending a miserable life in an impoverished one. — flannel jesus

Actually interesting! How could we refute this argument? I guess this way (?):
We can't be sure that this child that we save will keep having a miserable life.
It's far from being obvious that all people in prosperous countries deserve to live/live more pleasantly. They can be spiritually low, and letting them buy a pool doesn't necessarily make humanity better.
What do you think?

Societies are made up of individuals. We can't separate the two by saying that individuals can't change society. What's more, individual action can consist precisely in trying to mobilize groups. Finally, even if an individual action didn't change the overall system, the individual would still have acted well (from a deontological point of view).

I'd save the drowning child if I wanted to, and I'd donate to charity if I desired to as well. — Inyenzi

But the question isn't: do we want it? But rather: should we do it? Replacing “should” with “want” doesn't answer a moral question, it kills the whole moral philosophy. Why not. But a bit off-topic to me.

I care about my welfare more than I care about other people's, and I'm not responsible for the state of the world, or the negative welfare of other people that I didn't cause — Inyenzi

Well the whole point of the article is to show that you (and I) are indeed responsible for things happening very far away. Or at least these are crimes by omission, or complicity.

If everyone stops all "unnecessary" economic activity in the developed world those economies will collapse, massively affecting global trade, agricultural production, vaccine production and development, etc. This would probably also reduce global stability and security. And then this would probably have a net negative impact on the developing world, both in the short and long term — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not everyone. All it takes is enough people to solve the hunger problem (not offer caviar). That's not a lot of money, is it? To be calculated.
According to Oxfam, for example: “A tax of up to 5% on the wealth of the world's multimillionaires and billionaires could raise $1,700 billion a year, enough to lift 2 billion people out of poverty and finance a global plan to eradicate hunger.” So, without going through the billionaires, but mobilizing everyone fairly: 1700000000000/(8000000000-700000000) (8 billion people on earth - the 700 million poor who won't be financially participating, of course): each human should give $233. And that would trigger a crisis?

Not sure I understand. Isn't it obvious that all the money I give to one domain is money I didn't give to another?

there are numerous positives associated with alternatives to where to spend one's money aside from giving to charity — LuckyR

For example? And how would this be an objection? Singer would just add: use your discretionary dollars to help people in need, whether it is through humanitarian organization or not.

"Even if giving to charity definitely saved lives, which in reality, is not actually proven"
Well, it is proven in some cases (fortunately!), through laws, testimonies, journalism, etc.

I'm not sure if you understood his argument. Your statement is not only wrong, but it doesn't address mine nor Singer's point.

I don't think an amount equivalent to about 1/5th of US public sector spending divided up amongst amongst the entire world is going to solve global poverty. A much greater amount of spending hasn't even solved US poverty. Social Security is about that amount by itself and Medicare is another trillion dollars. That's split between 58 million US seniors and is inadequate to lift many out of poverty.

The same sort of argument would obviously still stand even if somehow every person on Earth had a requisite number of calories. In many low income countries, obesity is now a larger problem than hunger at any rate. Simply moving excess food from other countries in isn't a panacea either because, in the poorest countries, much of the workforce works in agriculture. Lowering the cost of food has the effect of crashing domestic incomes, which in turn leads to people abandoning their farms and flooding into urban areas, bringing on all the problems of compressed urban poverty.

So, while the problem is hardly insoluble it also isn't easy to solve either.

And so it's unethical to tithe at 10% because 99% is expected?

But why stop there? I think you're morally compelled to work around the clock, earning every penny you can so you can save another soul. Surely that's what you'd do for your own child, so you need to do it for everyone around the globe.

Since the cure to poverty is wealth, you ought to get an education and career that maximizes your wealth so you can give it away and save even more people. If you're not on Wall Street, you offer too little.

I condemn the rich who don't equalize themselves to the poor and I condemn the poor who fail to produce enough to give to others. The only ones I truly celebrate are the victims, the ones who through no fault of their own need the fruits of the wealthy.

Such is the consequence of placing virtue on failure, but it does seem to be the ethic du jour.

I condemn the rich who don't equalize themselves to the poor and I condemn the poor who fail to produce enough to give to others. The only ones I truly celebrate are the victims, the ones who through no fault of their own need the fruits of the wealthy.

Such is the consequence of placing virtue on failure, but it does seem to be the ethic du jour. — Hanover

Yup! More platitudes.

So my conclusion for this topic is -- we don't have an answer. Nothing. Rien.

Morality is a chore.

To preface, I agree with the fundamental idea that if you believe that everyone is equally valuable, then to spend *needlessly* on you or your loved ones is immoral, if the money could be better spent elsewhere.

I should also say that I am an ethical egoist, I do not believe everyone is equally morally valuable and so his conclusions dont apply to me. One must remember that all the arguments presented come from a ulititarian foundation and so only apply to that moral framework.

However, heres 2 arguments that allow one to spend money on themselves whilst still being a utilitarian.

Bigger moral choices

The more you invest in yourself, the more you have the ability to make wider and more consequential moral choices. For example, you could choose to not buy meat yourself because you are against animal suffering, but that changes nothing. True change can only come about through the progression of society as a whole, ie. creating meat that doesn't involve the suffering of an animal or outlawing meat eating.

If one has good reason to think that they are capable enough to make good moral choices on such large scales, then it is moral to build up a position capable of committing to such choices.

Progression

If one doesn't invest in entertainment, children, career, business, or any other long term interest of theirs, then while they are "more efficient" at saving lives in the present; they give up the progression that could allow more lives to be saved in the future, and they essentially commit to a world of no improvement in quality of life.

Sure, you could save a large swath of people by simply donating all your money away. However, investing in an education that will allow one to create better technology or ideas by which to solve global issues, will save even more lives in the long term.

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

Well the whole point of the article is to show that you (and I) are indeed responsible for things happening very far away. Or at least these are crimes by omission, or complicity. — LFranc

I saw this point you made and wanted to clarify something to you. Just because we are responsible for the misfortune of others (either by omission or not), does not make such an action immoral. The issue you are facing is one of presuming equal value to all individuals. If one values themselves above others, then clearly the arguments dont apply.

For example? And how would this be an objection? Singer would just add: use your discretionary dollars to help people in need, whether it is through humanitarian organization or not.

Oh there's plenty. Say I spend money on plane tickets to visit my daughter on vacation. Say you're employed by the airline. How much are you going to give to the poor if you lose your job? If I don't recharge my emotional batteries by taking a vacation how much quality will I bring to my employment when I'm working? Less quality equals less compensation, less compensation means less discretionary income to give to the poor.

As I used to tell the residents in training, you can't take care of patients if you don't take care of yourself.

Basically there are those who benefit others through their employment directly. Good for them. If one happens to be employed in an industry that doesn't directly help people, making maximal compensation maximizes the opportunity to help others. Who helps more poor people, a doctor working in a poor section of town or Bill Gates who made computer programs?

As to your "proof", sure one can prove that giving a million dollars can save, say 1000 lives BUT there's no proof that giving a million and one dollars saves an additional life. Well if the million and first dollar doesn't save a life, why not use it to go out to the movies?

Please do not hesitate to make several arguments at once. Thank you in advance for your insights! — LFranc

1 Singer doesn't ask himself what "needs" and he doesn't distinguish between relative and absolute poverty. (There may be stuff about this that I'm not aware of, but I very much doubt there's anything definitive.) Singer's "argument" is grossly exaggerated and seems more like a slogan than a proper argument. When you get in to the detail, it's obvious that things are not anything like as clear-cut as his rhetoric. Charity has its place in life, but this isn't it.

2 The argument, as we can see, and as every charity knows, is almost completely ineffective. Everybody (most people, many people) feel guilty for a while and then either works out a defence or just forgets it. This is not what motivates people.

3

So my conclusion for this topic is -- we don't have an answer. Nothing. Rien. Morality is a chore. — L'éléphant

A moral argument that presents morality as a duty and a chore has missed the point of morality - or at least the point of charity. It should not be about lecturing and bullying people. Not only is it counter-productive, but it leaves out love (prioritizing the welfare of some people over others) and compassion, which, if not patronizing, is the only proper motivation for charity. (There's a much better idea than Singer's in Indian philosophy - that the opportunity to give is a privilege and the we should thank the people that we give to rather than expect them to thank us. Whether it is more effective than Singer's is debatable, but still I prefer it to Singer's hectoring.)

However, there are other considerations here.

A Justice. The benefit of society is that we are stronger and better together. If resources are not shared, especially in times of trouble, there is no point to it and in extremis society does break down - so everybody suffers. That's not well defined, and you can always dismiss it as envy, but there are powerful motivators at work here. (Neither communism nor capitalism). (This comes under the heading of requirements for a society to function, which may or may not count as morality. But whatever its name, it matters).

B Enlightened self-interest. It isn't just those are homeless who benefit from help. We all do, because we don't have pictures of misery lining the streets we walk down, we don't have so much thieving and robbery, we don't have hungry mobs rioting and looting and so on. Helping an alcoholic get their life under control does not just benefit the alcoholic, but also the rest of us. It's not grand morality, but it is an effective motivator.

Yup! More platitudes.

So my conclusion for this topic is -- we don't have an answer. Nothing. Rien.

Morality is a chore. — L'éléphant

It was more a reductio ad absurdum.

I think it is reasonable to say that a great number of us could give more. I see no reason for feeling guilty about going to the cinema or whatever though.

His argument has good weight to it as we all know the 'out of sight, out of mind' factor is big for all humans.

I honestly think it makes more sense for us to attend to what troubles are happening locally because, in terms of practicality, we are way more likely to contribute where we can immediately see and deal with certain social problems (plus people LIKE to actively help others rather than passively give money).

Ideally, if people have a decent income they should see what they can do and budget for it if they wish. Encouraging people to try once and see how they feel is likely more proactive than appealing to guilt (no matter how slight the appeal to guilt is).

The feel good factor is good enough reason contribute and there is no need to tie people in knots of guilt about what they do or do not do. Far better to merely appeal to people's better nature and ask them to 'give it go' and see if they feel any emotional benefits from such actions.

Singer's point seems obviously correct, but then, Western culture is entirely predicated on production and consumption of material goods. — Wayfarer

It is obvious indeed, and it does not involve making a virtue of poverty or dependence as some have suggested. But it makes the individual responsible for rebalancing an economic system built on exploitation and radical injustice. This rebalancing needs to be done through the monetary system itself; demonising those who are hypnotised by the ideology of greed that has dominated the West for centuries produces much resistance.

We live, in the West, in an architecture of isolation, of private consumption and production, and our connectedness and interdependence is hidden from us. One's status is defined by how much one extracts from this system, not by how much one contributes to it (though the pretence is that these are the same). Singer has the right criticism but it is directed at the individual when it needs to be directed at the way of life that is imposed on the individual, of being morally responsible for social inequalities that they are entirely isolated from. We are pawns in a rigged game we did not invent and have no choice about playing.

But the poor white man’s used in the hands of them all like a tool
He’s taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
’Bout the shape that he’s in
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game — Bob Dylan