Any objections to Peter Singer's article on the child in the pond?
I know that some writers already tried to show objections to it, but I was not quite convinced, so dont hesitate to explain them to me if you were, or you can write your own objections.
For people who dont know this Singers article: he shows that it's immoral to spend money on products we don't absolutely need, instead of giving it to charities that save lives. He shows that millions of people (myself included to some degree), especially in developed countries, are immoral, choosing to buy some interior decoration or a cinema ticket instead of urgently feeding a human being who's down to his last bone.
Please do not hesitate to make several arguments at once. Thank you in advance for your insights!
For people who dont know this Singers article: he shows that it's immoral to spend money on products we don't absolutely need, instead of giving it to charities that save lives. He shows that millions of people (myself included to some degree), especially in developed countries, are immoral, choosing to buy some interior decoration or a cinema ticket instead of urgently feeding a human being who's down to his last bone.
Please do not hesitate to make several arguments at once. Thank you in advance for your insights!
Comments (100)
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.
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?
*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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Quoting 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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting 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.
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?
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 Quoting 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.
It was more a reductio ad absurdum.
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.
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.
[quote=Bob Dylan]But the poor white mans used in the hands of them all like a tool
Hes 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 hes in
But it aint him to blame
Hes only a pawn in their game
[/quote]
Power and greed and corruptible seed / seem to be all that there is...
Indeed. Still an individual can sing it as they see it. And pawns can play a game in different ways.
I confess I am shocked - as a moderately committed Green - by how many people agree that climate change is a Big Issue, then buy a bigger car to leave at the airport for their twenty-fifth flight on a holiday in some overheated landscape. Humans tend to use the individual's helplessness as a justification for omitting to make the most marginal and relatively undemanding changes to our styles of life.
The first thing is commendable while the second thing is naive, gullible, and fuels the lucrative business model of turning deception into real dollars.
That is clearly what Peter Singer really wants:
If it could be a scam, then it is a scam.
Murphy's law makes it impossible to outsource charity.
The organizations that he mentions, are known to be professional scammers.
Peter Singer is fuelling the online charity scam business model. He is just better at it than other con artists. For all I know, he might even be getting a commission for that.
I should have known.
Quoting Tarskian
As someone with inside knowledge, I concur. But I wouldn't accuse him of getting a commission though.
I'll believe you when you've managed to refute the studies and facts (but it's hard to refute facts...) carried out by numerous experts over many, many years on the subject. This site could be a good start: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/how-much-money-would-it-take-to-end-world-hunger/
It also leads to this site: https://fts.unocha.org/plans/overview/2022
Or let's focus on world hunger only: We need about $23 billion just this year [2022] to meet the needs of people facing starvation and acute malnutrition", the study *factually* says. Giving this amount doesn't mean that the problem won't reappear the following year, I agree, but we could conceivably donate this amount every year. And what is this amount when shared among the non-poor people of the world? 23000000000/(8000000000-700000000)=3.15dollars per year to donate (!)
Hm, okay... And what's the ratio of victim kind of poor to lazy poor who deserved it?
May I hear some arguments about this please? Why would you be (or others) morally more valuable than the starving child in Guatemala?
But the money to be donated by the non-poor is so ridiculously small that almost anyone without a job could make this donation. It's not a question of helping the poor buy a swimming pool, but simply lifting them out of extreme poverty. In a calculation above, I focused on ending world hunger, and that requires a donation of $3.15 a year from every non-poor person in the world (!)
So, about relative poverty, you mean that the non-poor might become poor if they give only 3,15 dollars every year so that no one dies from starvation? (See calculation above). Anyway, if you're going to go into economic territory (and this is indeed important), I'd like sources and proof.
Quoting Ludwig V
So you thank people in the street for not killing you everyday? No, you do know that this is their duty. Even if the law disappeared, you would think it's their moral duty. Singer's argument is that we are killers by omission (with responsibility shared with millions of others, of course) and therefore should not be considered charitable when we refuse to participate in these crimes. I think you're right when you say that most people feel bullied and lectured when presented with even the *possibility* that it's all true. Personally that's not my case, I'm not afraid to find out that I might be a huge a--hole.
I agree (and I'm not immune to this criticism myself)
Any solid proof? And not just isolated cases, but a systemic critique: embezzlement...
And what about other organizations?
Could we know this "inside knowledge"?
Take for example Oxfam, known for exchanging sex for access to taxpayer-funded aid:
Highly-paid expensive expat jobs just for westerners while the locals work for peanuts:
Fundraisers aggressively pestering elderly and other vulnerable demographics for donations:
Oxfam staff striking in the UK over poor labor conditions:
Oxfam spouts highly ideological propaganda and demands more taxes supposedly on just the rich:
Oxfam wastes lots of money on inefficient and useless internal bureaucracy, whistleblowers complain:
Oxfam is much more about promoting feminism and the LGBTQ ideology than about helping the poor:
Quoting LFranc
I will argue instead that it is immoral to spend money on others if it is not surplus. One's economic success is, for the cases that matter here, a product of one's virtue which includes genetic virtue. Reinvesting the fruits of work into oneself, to further one's success, is morally preferrable, as to increase society's progress. Giving it it to those that are not as virtuous is ultimately a waste of resources and holds mankind back.
Entertainment and pleasure are also not superfluous. Without pleasure and entertainment, you won't be able to keep the same productivity. If engineers don't keep it up, many operaries will be out of a job, and the services provided, often essential, will disappear. An engineer giving up the nice things in life for the benefit of individuals with weakness of flesh (addiction) and weakness of mind (low intelligence) may result a net very-negative for mankind.
1. Greed exists, therefore not everyone would choose this lifestyle. (And many/most people don't feel a moral obligation strong enough actually to do it, even if they are good people.)
2. Even if everyone did, that would likely cause a worse problem as economies no longer function and no one would have valuable money to give.
3. What do you define as necessary? Is the claim that anything you purchase that does not save a life is immoral? Then you could never improve lives, and society would get nowhere, as no money is being spent on actually making progress or consuming things.
If you follow this, you end up in a society where no one has possessions, and everything is shared equally. Unfortunately, without perfect individuals, this doesn't work out because the amount of labor being done in such a society is so much less than in a consumer-based society that less is given out and the lives of people living in it are negatively affected.
Because of the result of this philosophy taken to the extreme, it is concluded that the most reasonable way to save and improve more lives is for those with more unneeded resources to donate because they have less of an effect on the economy by donating a certain sum than the average person. (For example, with $100 less, someone who has fewer resources might buy less, but a rich person is unlikely to, missing the same amount of money.)
This doesn't work perfectly though, especially since oftentimes those with large amounts of money are also the people least likely to donate, all else being equal (including resources, the variable I talk about is their psychology). This is the benefit of having non-consumer organizations such as churches or non-profits that not only donate and improve general well-being by themselves but also provide a way for people to promote these causes.
No, unfortunately not.
I don't disagree with your posting, but that is worlds apart from the OP's notion that "it's immoral to spend money on products we don't absolutely need, instead of giving it to charities that save lives". Implying that one's money should either be spent on 1) necessities of living or 2) donated to charity.
If that's not what Singer means then he needs to reword his commentary.
Singer wants us to give money to Oxfam, because the girls in Haiti are clamoring for more.
What I will say is giving away all my possessions and living basically poor as well is definitely not the best way I can help. I can help much more effectively if I allow myself to lead a successful life and attempt systemic change or at the very least yield more lucrative donations. I mean, if the argument is purely philosophical and concludes that we are technically moral monsters, but can't do anything about it then whatever, but to extrapolate this kind of action is ridiculous and flawed.
Totally agreed.
I give to less fortunate relatives and to people that I can physically see around me.
I consider everything else to be an online scam meant to part the fool and his money.
It's not hard to set up a web page with a donate button, to call yourself the new "Oxfam", and to pretend that you will save the prostitutes in Haiti from starvation.
But then again, apparently, true to their vocation, Oxfam really tried "hard". It was an orgy of failed attempts!
Exactly. Making the economic pie as large as possible makes it easier to give a meaningful slice of it to charity. Shrinking the pie requires a gigantic (and unrealistic) slice be given to charity to make a difference.
Some of the reactions here confirmed to me that it's very difficult to have a reasoned conversation on Singer's article because too many people feel attacked in their ego and can't tolerate the simple possibility that they may not be doing the right thing. But looking for the truth is not always about trying to feel well
You are asking for an audit report. That would require an external audit. I just compiled a list of incidents from what the press has reported. I am not interested in auditing these organizations because I would never give them one dollar anyway. Performing an external audit is not for free. Feel free to waste your own money on that.
Very interesting. But it ain't going to happen, so how is it relevant?
Quoting QuixoticAgnostic
That's a very interesting point.
Singer wants to generalize the obligation to help someone in imminent danger of death, in whatever way we are able, even at some cost to ourselves, to donating to a charity that serves that same purpose. There are complications, but I think most people will go along with that obligation. Walking on by when you could help is less bad than standing around watching, but still, one would feel guilty, and, IMO, justifiably so.
For people who don't live in the UK, I should explain that in the UK, the national lifeboat service is a charity, not funded or organized by any state institution, but by the Royal National Lifeboat Institute.
So, does donating to the lifeboats equate to saving the child drowning in the pond? Or is donating money to enable a hospital to buy a life-saving scanner morally equivalent to the actions of the people who operate it? I think not, because the connection between my action and the life saved is indirect, in the sense that although I am enabling someone else to save lives, I am not saving them myself. Consequently, the donation is, let us say, recommended, but not obligatory.
On the other hand, I'm not al all sure that charity in general is not obligatory. In one way, if charity is obligatory, it becomes a tax, or a question of justice. A different kind of case is the expectation that in time of, for example, famine, food must be shared equally. Again, that's a question of justice, not charity.
But there is a tradition in the West that one should donate 10% of one's income to charity (the tithe). However, that doesn't specify what the objects of one's charity should be. So I'm inclined to think that while donating to charity in general is morally obligatory, what charity one should donate to is a matter of choice, depending on one's own values.
I'm aware that I am positing that there is a moral difference between face-to-face situations like the drowning child and remote situations. It's not just moral weakness to give more generously to one's family and friends than to distant unknown people. On the contrary, that's what love and friendship mean. Whether love and friendship are morally obligatory, I'm not sure. But I am sure that I'm not morally required to love specific individuals (except, perhaps, my children) even though to love someone and be friends with others are good things. (That's not well formulated, I know.)
However, that is okay for Singer, because helping the poor (or whether the duty of helping the very poor when we have extra money) can be done without the help of humanitarian organizations. Maybe Singer should have insisted on that more
OK, let's start with the obvious. Was Hitler as morally valuable (and what does that mean, exactly?) as Jonas Salk?
No. Out-group preference is quite literally an evolutionary «death end».
No, in that case, you're not wrong. Singer writes (I highlight the important part) : "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, [b]without there by sacrificing anything of comparable
moral importance[/b], we ought, morally, to do it."
A problem would appear in the following situation: saving your child or two stranger's children.
Anyway, to go back to Singer's article: fortunately, most people can *both* provide for their own children and prevent (at least temporarily) the death of children in poor countries.
I can't see how one could defend that
I'm still going to save my own kid. It's hard to see a scenario where I don't do that. And I don't think I would beat myself up for that either. I guess if the fate of an entire city were at stake, I might change that view.
I agree that the meaning of "morally valuable" is unclear. But I also think that Jonas Salk was a morally better person than Hitler. But I also think that both of them and John Doe are all equally human persons and therefore have exactly the same moral claims on the rest of us. That's what human rights are all about.
Quoting RogueAI
No, of course not. But I would be wrong for prioritizing your kid over someone else's kid. (Given that we have no social connection beyond this forum.)
Quoting Ourora Aureis
I think I can understand what you're saying. But you need to say that you don't believe that everyone is equally valuable and consequently that Singer's argument is invalid, and so his conclusions don't apply to you. But it would be inconsistent to admit that his argument is valid and deny the obligation that follows from it.
Good point. I agree with that. But what would a consequentalist say? Suppose we have a crystal ball and we know that one kid will grow up to cure a kind of cancer and another kid will grow up to become a drug addict and die of an OD at a young age, and we have to save one or the other. Should we prioritize the cancer curer over the drug addict? What about deciding who gets a life saving organ? If the organ is an equally good match for a 70 year old and a 5 year old, who should get it? Shouldn't the five year old get it? What about if an organ is an equally good match for two 30 year olds, but one ruined his liver by drinking, while the other came down with a rare liver disease. Should the drinker get equal priority? What if he's sobered up, but also has a history of relapsing?
My opinion is that even coming up with a normative ethical theory is already missing the point of what ethics is supposed to be.
As you please.
Agreed. The moral obligation certainly exists in Islam in the form of [I]zakaat[/I], i.e. the mandatory charity levy.
So, in Islamic terms, Singer's apostolic exhortatation translates into:
[I]Don't forget to donate zakaat![/I]
I'm not very interested in this possibility, but in this one:- "Suppose we don't have a crystal ball. Should we prioritize one over the other?" Since that one is where we are, let's have the answer. Considering the other possibility is just messing about.
OK. Messing about can be fun.
If someone claimed to have a crystal ball, would I go along with it? No. Because there will be many other consequences of my action and I couldn't possibly make that decision unless I know them all. My bet is that when I do, there will be so many factors on each side that no rational decision is possible.
What would convince you, beyond rational doubt, that a proffered crystal ball is always correct in its predictions? What would persuade you to trust your own life to it? (After all, the crystal ball might finger you for the chop.)
Quoting Lionino
I have heard that a healthy, fresh, corpse can save nine lives. Not bad for one death.
I don't trust "intuition", except as a starting-point for evaluation.
Quoting Lionino
I don't disagree with you. But I'm not sure I know what the point of ethics is supposed to be.
Thanks for the reminder. But I think that "charity levy" is self-contradictory. A levy for charitable purposes is possible, but the justification for it would be justice, not charity. And so, I am not opposed to "charity" in the name of justice - for example, as an intervention when authorities refuse to implement justice. Food banks, for example - or indeed, a charity for famine relief. Come to think of it, if we interpret Singer's argument as about justice, it would have considerably more traction.
Neither am I sure, but I know that some things are not its point, and normative theories are one of them we are humans, not robots. If I had to guess, both Kant (I am confident about this one) and John S. Mill had autism, much stronger than mine at least.
Quoting Ludwig V
Do you not trust yours that we shouldn't kill someone healthy to save 9 who are dying?
Should the state consider you an organ donor unless you notify them otherwise (presumed consent)?
Mayo clinic says that's a myth. You have any evidence to back it up?
Ask ketchup clinic next.
and thought "Oh, chucks, so surely nobody would be corrupt enough to harvest your organs legally!".
Life isn't Reddit.
Yes. But I'm open to argument.
Quoting RogueAI
I think this is a situation in which silence should not be taken as consent. However, presumed consent might be better than the current situation (as I understand it), which is that if you don't express a view, your nearest and (possibly) dearest will be asked to decide for you. Are you sure that they will decide as you would have decided or, perhaps, that they will decide correctly?
Quoting Lionino
Yes. But that doesn't mean it should become a legal imperative.
Quoting Lionino
It is a worry, I suppose. I think the possibility that efforts to save me will be pushed too far is much more likely. There comes a point when continued efforts amount to torture.
The real difficulty is that there may be no right answer.
Quoting Lionino
That's not something you should guess about. However, it is true that autism is a spectrum and mild autism may be much more common than we suppose. But whatever your opinion, it should not interfere with proper, serious, consideration of your philosophy. Dismissing your view just because your mental health is less than perfect is simply prejudice.
However, I share your suspicion of normative theories of the conventtional kind. They seem to me to be rather unhelpful - even distracting.
Quoting LuckyR
Quite so.
Ok, let's go about this.
Normative ethics is, basically, if a theory is accepted, the set of rules which our human actions should be based on, not basing our actions on those rules is less than ideal.
Ethics is weakly defined as the philosophy of good behaviour (metaethically this definition might be circular, but not an issue here).
Philosophers talk not only of good behaviour, but of love, art, virtue, politics, technology.
Narcissistic psychopaths, specially when untreated, are not quite able to experience love (please no solipsism argument here for this conversation hinges on behaviour correctly reflecting mental states).
So, a narcissistic psychopath could undoutably make a good logician or philosopher of science, but surely a narcissistic psychopath would not make a good philosopher of love.
Likewise, there may be a set of psychological traits that may make someone anxious about the fluid and uncertain nature of what constitutes good behaviour. Because of that, they may invent a set of rigid rules to make up for that. I think that, unfortunately, that misses the very nature of good behaviour, which is ethics.
I believe that it is not appropriate behaviour to base an argument on a philosophical doctrine that I do not believe. "If P then Q" is not a sound argument if P is false. But I have seen people attempt that tactic. (I suspect that, in truth, they are just trying to change the subject.)
Quoting Lionino
I don't know what your training or background may be, but I'm inclined to think that one needs better information before beginning to pin psychiatric diagnoses on people based on the kind of information we have about both Kant and Mill.
Quoting Lionino. There is plausibility in the idea that personality traits may influence the philosophical doctrines that people sign up to. But that does not mean that the position that they sign up to is not sound.
I suppose you understand that your argument here might count under the tactic of giving a dog a bad name.
I have no trouble agreeing with you that ethics and morality are not a matter of a set of rigid rules, though rules of thumb may be helpful.
I just think that whatever psychological difficulties or abnormalities Kant and Mill might have laboured under, the theories they propound deserve serious consideration in their own right. If nothing else, it would be a bit over the top, wouldn't it, to surmise that all the people who have accepted their theories would also register on the autism spectrum - unless there's some evidence (apart from their accepting Kant/Mill's theories)
His argument is valid because, whether he realises it or not, its based upon some assumed values. If you value everyone equally then his argument is pretty good (outside of the faults I already mentioned). However, if you dont have that value then his argument simply doesnt apply to you. Values are perspective based, and so the conclusions of moral arguments are aswell. This is true whether or not he personally thinks of his argument this way, I dont know his position nor care.
Zakaat is in principle not enforced by government (even though in some countries it loosely is) but by religious self-discipline. If you don't want to do it, then you obviously don't. However, it is inculcated from a young age that it is a moral obligation, surrounded by quite a bit of social pressure.
Of course, if you reject a key premiss of the argument, you will reject it, on the grounds that it is unsound, rather than invalid. I get that.
But I don't reject that premiss. I think that it is badly formulated and wrong for that reason. I'm not sure whether that means the argument is invalid or unsound and that's a secondary issue. But I expect you won't care about that.
quote="Count Timothy von Icarus;917606"]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[/quote]
So the term you are looking for might be "negative feed-back cycle", perhaps?
Quoting Benkei
There's no easy answer to this. There's no difficult answer either. But it is clear where we need to look. Start with the difference between "the positive things that modern societies can do" and "economic activity that is deemed more profitable". You "deemed" identifies the problem, or part of the problem. One can recognize that positive activity may not be profitable. But one can also recognize that making a profit can also be positive.
The misalignment bites because money is not just an accounting measure, but a proxy for resources. Whoever controls money, controls resources. If the profit and positivity were aligned properly, our resources could be directed properly . See, for example Happiness index - Wikipedia
This is not a perfect definition of the problem, but it is a start.
[quote=Robert F. Kennedy, Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968]Even if we act to erase material poverty, Kennedy said, there is another greater task. It is to confront the poverty of satisfaction .. that afflicts us all. Americans have given themselves over to the mere accumulation of things.
Our Gross National Product now is over 800 billion dollars a year. But that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armoured cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts . . . . the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud to be Americans. [/quote]
Profit and "positivity" are perfectly aligned in crisis, which is why the rich get richer in every crisis. Alignment doesn't resolve anything.
The connection between these criticisms could be put in a question: Who is going to listen to this argument and what does that entail?
Most people will not listen to the argument, some will. Who will those people be? Well, people who tend to feel guilt, compassion, religious duty. Will the power players, who promote consumption, profit off of it and frame the way markets work be affected? Not much, I think. Yes, if a grassroots movement arose, corporations would have to adapt, but given their control of media and focus, I think this is unlikely. What happens when people who tend to have compassion are the mains ones affected? They give up their digital devices, cars if they can, live more simply, have less resources and, I think this leads to them having less effects on the world. What does that lead to? I don't know. But we can't pretend the causation is limited to the moment money goes one way or the other. What is need? (it's ad hom to focus on Singer, but he does have three children. That third child, before he or she existed, had no needs, and all the future expense of that child could have supported at the very least a number of needy, starving already existing children. Did PS need that child? Now that's ad hom and he could have a great argument and not quite follow it, but it did lead nicely to what I think is haziness around need - and then in addition limits around what the effects of the argument, should it be widely effective, would be. Can any Westerner really justify having a child or another child? At least if we look at it in the argument's choice moment money goes here or there approach.
One other effect of the argument generally not thought of is that those who hear the argument, but for whatever reason do not follow it, may well feel guilt. One can argue that, well, they should. But 1) people feel guilt not just from useful/valid arguments 2) this addition of guilt isn't helping anyone, and that guilt is not going to bite on the power players and sociopaths. It may even have detrimental effects when decent people feel worse about themselves.
One could argue this is a deserved side effect and will be outweighed by the positive effects of the argument. I just don't think that's the case.
The argument it seems to me functions as a kind of guilt trip, I think, and affects the wrong people.
We often look at the truth of an argument as what truths it contains. A little along the lines of Reddy's conduit metaphor idea, where we see communication as a kind of container/conduit for truth. I think it is important to look at what arguments do, not just analyze them in terms of what they contain. And to not just consider the effects that are easy to track as if less easy effects don't exist so we don't need to mention them.
Of course my sense of what it will do is speculative. But then, so would postive evaluations.
I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough about what I meant by "profit" and "positivity". Alignment doesn't, of itself, resolve anything. The issue is what alignment will produce correct results. Note the the alignment is produced by how you define profit and how you define positivity. (Both of the concepts are, of course, value-based).
As they are conventionally defined, the search for "profit" is defined in such a way that it tends to produce results that are, from one perspective, positive, but are negative (not positive) from other perspectives. The depth of this problem is clear when we remember that money is only worth what you can do with it. I'm sure there are many places that make the point, but I like this one:-
[quote=Robert F. Kennedy, Remarks at the University of Kansas, March 18, 1968]...that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armoured cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts . . . . the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
[/quote]
In order to improve matters, we just need to make sure that profit is defined in such a way that maximizing profit also maximizes the things that make life worth-while.
BTW, I think, if you look more closely, that in a crisis, some rich people will make money, but not all of them. I agree, though, that turning a profit in a famine seems like an unacceptably callous thing to do.
That's quite easy yet barely anyone is prepared to do it.
Yes. I'm afraid it's a pipe dream. The Happiness indexes are a step in the right direction.
H'm. Then it seems to be somewhere in between a tax and a charity.