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

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting Ivan. I think as I mention with DanP, it is just a complete lack of morale will. We know what is right to do, but we sink into apathy and ignorance. We have the capacity as we have noted a few of the certainly thousands of people who have overcome this weak morale fortitude. We personally need to look at ourselves and ask why we can't and whether we can live with the fact that we not doing more has cost lives.

Ivan, certainly the system is a working solution, but it has saved millions of people and it means everything to those people.

When you say "the right thing to do" you are defining morality. What is the basis for this defintion? Many religious people would derive their defintion from the Bible or other religious texts, but to define morality in the absence of divine dicates gets pretty dicey. It seems a bit of a reach to say that your sense of morality applies to everyone else. One might argue, for example, that my moral obligation is to provide the best life that I can for my own children.

The system is working? Then give me the dollar amount needed to solve this problem once and for all, and a deadline. What you call a solution, I might call black hole for wealth. I have never seen an end game here.

What are the rates of population growth in countries like India, for example. You tell me how this will ever end even if we drain every dime from this country [which we are actively doing at this moment, btw, through our trade deficit].

I am completely sympathetic to your argument, but I am also sympathetic to the frustration of the problem.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

When you say "the right thing to do" you are defining morality. What is the basis for this defintion?

I think everyone can agree that if you have the ability to save a life, it is moral to do so.

The system is working?

I forgot to add "not" as supported by my "but" :)

What are the rates of population growth in countries like India, for example. You tell me how this will ever end even if we drain every dime from this country.

Larger problems with the system, politics and sociology are irrelevant to the argument as I have discussed with DanP. If you can save a life by donating $15 to vaccinate a child with measles instead of going to movie, you do it. I don't care if the whole system doesn't work. It's about that one child you can effect with each spending decision. It matters to that one child.

 

[DanP]

The extreme poor do deserve to be helped and supported.

Sure they do. We may differ a bit though in our vision on how this is best to be accomplished.

Just by discussing this issue you acknowledge your awareness to the issue, but still seem content to live in a world where you see yourself as the victim of nature. You think nature made me selfish, so I will not fight it.

This is false. But it's also a very predictable statement and it is not the first time I heard it. It comes up every time when someone dare to hint at evolutionary and biologic factors as having a modulative effect on human behavior. Acknowledging the nature IMO is not to become a victim, but to gain power. Understanding how our behavior is modulated by social forces, physical environment, genetics and evolutionary factors can be of great use to implement very practical social solutions to fight high criminality rates, implement social policies for the poor, preventive health care and so on.

Also I do not think that nature made me "selfish". Us humans are perfectly capable of both competitive and cooperative behaviors. But the interplay of those is complex, and it sits in a equibrium.

If anything, I say that understanding more about the human behavior can offer us a real chance in becoming more open toward each other, and implement realistic policies which
do work. Acknowledging this can save a great deal of frustration and lower the expectation
which one may have towards the integral of the society. It's also the key to "we must do better". Understanding how our social and moral cognition works is paramount for a good understanding of helping behaviors. Many of those factors are already known.

Our species is the least genetically constrained species which ever walked the earth. But at the same time, we have thousand of genetic propensities. Small modulations which will combine with modulations of the pre-natal environment, of the rearing environment, current environment and so on, and will create a resultant behavior.

Interesting Ivan. I think as I mention with DanP, it is just a complete lack of morale will. We know what is right to do, but we sink into apathy and ignorance.

Its not apathy and ignorance. This behavior results from the interplay of many factors, ranging from biology to social forces acting from the society in which you live.

We have the capacity as we have noted a few of the certainly thousands of people who have overcome this weak morale fortitude.

Maybe they didn't had to overcome anything. Perhaps they are just a genetic variation of a receptor gene for the self regulation of oxytocin. This coupled with a certain type of rearing environment, may be enough to strongly modulate their behavior toward the end of the spectrum of helping behaviors. In a word, they where already the "saints" when they reached adult age. Please note that I am not saying they ARE this. Obviously I didnt studied them.

Just something to ponder to.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?

Great thread, Greg!

Singer probably addresses this, but I think a lot of it has to do with wrapping our heads around the overwhelming amount of need in the world. The images we see of starving children and abused animals is so painful and overwhelming that the mind reels just trying to process it. It's easier for people to push it away entirely from their thoughts, and probably rationalize it with, "my contribution is so small, it could only be a drop in the bucket, anyway."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Singer probably addresses this, but I think a lot of it has to do with wrapping our heads around the overwhelming amount of need in the world. The images we see of starving children and abused animals is so painful and overwhelming that the mind reels just trying to process it. It's easier for people to push it away entirely from their thoughts, and probably rationalize it with, "my contribution is so small, it could only be a drop in the bucket, anyway."

I have been certainly guilty of this thought. He does bring it up early in the book, but there is a nice quick example I've heard in a Buddhism book I just finished also:

"A sleepy sea side town awoke to thousands of starfish washing up on their beach. Many people gathered to view and talk about it. After a bit, one boy rushed down to the beach and began throwing starfish back into the sea. A man came down and said "forget it, there are too many to save, what does it matter" and the boy opened his hand and said "it matters to this one".

Again, in this thread we end up thinking too big. This thread is not about so much as solving the entire issue, but saving one worthwhile life at a time by making better spending choices.

 

[Lacy33]

Greg, given that probably 99.999% of everyone living, and everyone who has ever lived, could never live up to the standards suggested here, isn't the notion of "a bad person", a moot point? How can one logically argue that everyone dead or alive was or is bad? Bad compared to what; aliens?

This is why [in part] the Catholics have saints. A few very special people are able to rise above their nature, but most of us are weak selfish beings who just want to be comfortable. Is that bad? No, it is human.

There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

And because it is brought up now and then we reevaluate our personal potential. Good!
With even the potential for Excellent!

 

[K Rool]

Not only would I save a child while it was drowning, I'd save a kitten too. And perhaps many other things that were drowning. Perhaps I should spend some money for saving everything.

 

[Lacy33]

Not only would I save a child while it was drowning, I'd save a kitten too. And perhaps many other things that were drowning. Perhaps I should spend some money for saving everything.

You're getting it.

 

[ThomasT]

What I'm really after here is a response to Singer's argument that "that any money spent on non-essential items and services rather than giving is morally wrong".

He's assuming that it's necessary to help people in need, with the degree of necessity ranging from the sorts of people and situations you're talking about (very high), to, say, somebody who just needs a loan to get by for a while (very low). The question is, necessary according to what criterion or criteria? For the survival of humanity? Apparently not. For the health and well being of a significant portion of humanity? Apparently not. Could the governments, and the very rich, of the world better spend the money at their disposal to help vast numbers of abjectly poor people? Of course.

Is the situation in some impoverished region going to prevent me from buying and consuming stuff that I really don't need? Of course not. As Jarle has pointed out, modern societies are based on the development, production, marketing, and consumption of nonessentials.

Singer's argument is an emotional one intended to get an emotional response. It's valid only on that level in the sense that it might get a significant number of people who weren't giving before to give by making them feel guilty about how they spend some of their money. But I suspect that it will only affect a relatively small portion of the people it's aimed at.

How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child.

This assumes, unnecessarily, that THAT money could have saved a child. An ungrounded assumption, I think.

How should one feel about governments wasting hundreds of billions of dollars when that money could have saved vast numbers of children? Now, that kind of money makes a difference. And the US government has, and wastes, that kind of money. Using Singer's argument to emotion, the US government is responsible for virtually every unnecessary death of every child in the world.

If spending $3 on a candy bar dooms a child to death by not getting a vaccine, how is that not wrong?

If it did, it would be wrong. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

What dooms these children to death is government policies and practices.

I want to stress that Peter also does not support directly giving the people in extreme poverty money or food. He advocates money go towards primarily to medical services and education.

The medical services and education are important of course, but without an accompanying infusion of the stuff (like infrastructure, housing, MONEY and FOOD) that sufficient education might eventually allow the local populations to continue in sustainable communities, then it's all just a continuing temporary solution -- the main beneficiaries of which are transporters, distributors, paid medical, education, and charity staff, etc.

If I were to donate, say, $100 dollars per month to some charity, then I would want most of that money to reach some person or persons in need in the form of MONEY and FOOD. But I believe that very little, if any, of my donation would reach them in that form.

Only governments, and the very wealthy, can do what's really necessary to build sustainable modern societies in these impoverished regions. Putting it on average consumers in affluent societies is an interesting tactic, but it isn't a valid moral argument.

... I think you'd choose differently if you knew that child.

Of course. And this is precisely what makes the candy bar argument an emotional one rather than a logical one.

So, no, I don't feel bad about buying that candy bar, or that can of tennis balls or seeing that movie instead of sending the money to some charity.

And, incidently, though it isn't why I bought those things, I helped all the people whose lives and families depend on me buying those things.

 

[Zarqon]

My two thoughts on this:

1) The argument has been made several times that paying those $15 will save one child, but I'm not so sure this is the full story. I don't have any personal experience of the real situation in places like africa, but from what I gather there are just too many born, such that all cannot survive as long as the system there looks like it does. There is not enough supplies like food to support the population, so if I pay $15 to vaccinate one child he will grow up to steal the food from someone else, who will die in his stead, and I end up not doing good, but only perpetuate the current missery.

Now, I understand this may be slightly extreme, and you might make a net saving effect by constantly pushing in more money, but I really don't like this as a solution. Instead I agree with many of the previous posters in that what is really needed is work on the bigger scale, foreign goverments making sure proper infrastructure is built etc. I don't feel inclined by buy a vaccine for someone, but if you can find me an organization with very competent and trustworth people trying to make long term infrastructure changes or similar (a la CJ Cregg's builing roads from The West Wing), then I will be a lot more inclined to put money there to help out.


2) From a personal point of view, I don't want to feel guilty all the time, every time I buy something for myself. We have gotten very far in the western world to make our situation a comfortable one, for most, but what good was that effort if I should walk around feeling guilty for every single thing I buy? I don't want to be forced to think about the problems in all other places of the Earth all the time, I want to be able to relax and enjoy the things I have, and in the end, I can't really be convinced by any argument that says I should feel bad all the time, so this is a second argument for why I think these problems should be dealt with on the government level, rather than by the individual persons.

 

[DanP]

2) From a personal point of view, I don't want to feel guilty all the time, every time I buy something for myself. We have gotten very far in the western world to make our situation a comfortable one, for most, but what good was that effort if I should walk around feeling guilty for every single thing I buy? I don't want to be forced to think about the problems in all other places of the Earth all the time, I want to be able to relax and enjoy the things I have, and in the end, I can't really be convinced by any argument that says I should feel bad all the time, so this is a second argument for why I think these problems should be dealt with on the government level, rather than by the individual persons.

An emotional response to an emotional argument. But I bet not quite the response Singer expected :P

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DanP]

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

You put it in an absolute form, in the form of a moral normative.

I will simply present you the statement that the idea of a moral normative is flawed . By itself , any action is amoral. It is neither wrong, neither right.

It is only the social context which can attach descriptive ethics to such an event. Your current society may consider the affirmation as morally wrong or morally right.

Lets not forget the fact that killing someone can lend you in the electric chair, or make you the hero of the neighborhood. It's all in the social context. We hunt down domestic killers on our soil, but we send the best of us to kill in various regions of the world.

 

[akd_dka]

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

It would be very hard to decide objectively what is nearly as important or not for our living.

If we look at the life of Mahatma Gandhi for instance , he tried to find an answer for this and he came to the conclusion that even institutions such as railways , textile industries , hospitals are not important for a person's well being. (These are noble ideas indeed and Gandhi rightly didn't impose these on his people. He tried to inculcate it in his own life .)He discusses these ideas in his book "Hind Swaraj - Indian home rule". And some of his ideas are borrowed from philosophers such as John Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy. After reading Ruskin's book - "Unto this last" , Gandhi concluded that only life worth living is that of a land tiller and we should only wear home-spun cloth. These ideas are hard to carry out practically and even in India these have been met with limited success.So we shouldn't feel guilty if we are unable to decide what is nearly as important for a living .This question has baffled many a great men for centuries.

IMO , if a person is earning his money through rightful non corrupt means he is entitled to do what he wishes with it provided it doesn't harm his fellow beings.

A person who does donations is a good person , but a person who doesn't do donations isn't a bad person. (a person who does corruption or steals money willfully is a bad person though).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It is only the social context which can attach descriptive ethics to such an event. Your current society may consider the affirmation as morally wrong or morally right.

Perhaps, but then show me a society in which that premise is not overwhelming valued.

 

[waht]

So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives

He is confusing the rich with the middle class. The middle class works its *** off in order to make a living. If you had a family, an innate paternal instinct kicks into "provide" and you'd think twice about donating some of your hard earned income to someone without work halfway across the world.

But if you are rich and are financially secure, then that's a different story. Alot of rich people are philanthropists: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Angelina Jolie, etc. But still, their contributions are absorbed by a black hole. You can only get out of poverty by economic growth. And that takes time unfortunately.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

It would be very hard to decide objectively what is nearly as important or not for our living.

So we shouldn't feel guilty if we are unable to decide what is nearly as important for a living .This question has baffled many a great men for centuries.

Certainly a person doesn't need to spend hours a day making arguments for what is and what isn't as important. I am confident most people can make these judgments on what they can do without, without much fuss. It doesn't have to be an exact science.

A person who does donations is a good person , but a person who doesn't do donations isn't a bad person. (a person who does corruption or steals money willfully is a bad person though).

But if a person has been informed that by them choosing a new pair of expensive high heels that a child would die because they needed that money for a vaccine. How is that not a wrong choice? You have a sick child in front of you and a pair of high heels and you choose the heels. Wrong.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

He is confusing the rich with the middle class. The middle class works its *** off in order to make a living. If you had a family, an innate paternal instinct kicks into "provide" and you'd think twice about donating some of your hard earned income to someone without work halfway across the world.

The middle class does not need a new iphone to live. A person in extreme poverty does need a vaccine or a piece of bread to live. One gets the iphone, the other gets no vaccine or bread.

Please see this post
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82

 

[DanP]

Perhaps, but then show me a society in which that premise is not overwhelming valued.

Yours for example. Mine for another example. A status quo, IMO, easily seen out in the wild. Save for several crusaders, if you state that you do not donate, you are not morally condemned by society at large. Nobody will call you imoral. More than that, you can still be looked upon as an outstanding member of the community. You face no social rejection, no pressure to conform. If this norm would be overwhelmingly valued, there would be tremendous social pressure to conform.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yours for example. Mine for another example. A status quo, IMO, easily seen out in the wild. Save for several crusaders, if you state that you do not donate, you are not morally condemned by society at large. Nobody will call you imoral. More than that, you can still be looked upon as an outstanding member of the community. You face no social rejection, no pressure to conform. If this norm would be overwhelmingly valued, there would be tremendous social pressure to conform.

You're telling me that our society thinks that we shouldn't help someone in need even if it doesn't put us out much? I can't believe that is true.

Dan, show that premise (without any adulterating or adding opinions) to 5 people and tell me how many disagree with it.

 

[akd_dka]

But if a person has been informed that by them choosing a new pair of expensive high heels that a child would die because they needed that money for a vaccine. How is that not a wrong choice? You have a sick child in front of you and a pair of high heels and you choose the heels. Wrong.

A very indirect causal link exists between a person buying an expensive high heels and a child not getting money for a vaccine. So it is difficult to prove that it is a wrong choice. For instance , what if the company from which you buy an expensive high heels has an owner who is philanthropic like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. So ultimately the money may go to the poor child .

Of course , if a person does decide on not buying the shoes and spending money on donations it is a noble choice . But we can't go on incriminating a person who chooses not to do so.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

A very indirect causal link exists between a person buying an expensive high heels and a child not getting money for a vaccine.

Seems pretty clear to me. Only casual if you are lazy and can be allow yourself to be disconnected by the distance factor.

So it is difficult to prove that it is a wrong choice. For instance , what if the company from which you buy an expensive high heels has an owner who is philanthropic like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. So ultimately the money may go to the poor child.

We're talking fractions of a penny to the dollar. Far from compelling.

Of course , if a person does decide on not buying the shoes and spending money on donations it is a noble choice . But we can't go on incriminating a person who chooses not to do so.

If a person has the power to save a child and chooses not to. We can't incriminate them?

 

[DanP]

You telling me that our society disagrees that we should help someone in need even if it doesn't put us out much? That is insane.

Dan, show that premise (without any adulterating or adding opinions) to 5 people and tell me how many disagree with it.

It doesn't matter what they say. They could say simply try to live up to what isthe perceived expected answer to this test. And I am pretty sure that all would come up with answers which do look good :P They would gladly lie just to look good or to avoid conflict, or to satisfy what they think is the answer the experimentalist expect from them

What matters is that out in the wild, in our society, the norm is not enforced. Look, as you said, ppl prefer iPhones instead of donating to Unicef. This is the status quo in your society and in mine.

 

[akd_dka]

Seems pretty clear to me. Only casual if you are lazy and can be allow yourself to be disconnected by the distance factor.

I meant causal not casual.(I apologise if it was a typo from your side.)

I personally feel, that we should strive to do donations on a regular basis and should avoid unnecessary luxuries and wastages. But we can only hope that others learn from our example.

"Be the change you want to see in the world " should be our guiding light.

If a person has the power to save a child and chooses not to. We can't incriminate them?

No . We can't incriminate that person. And this is valid even in the case where a person choses not to save a child drowning in sea water. We can say that the person lacks courage to do so or is apathetic. But I think, lacking courage or being apathetic is not the same as being immoral.
However a person who throws a child in sea water willfully is an immoral person.

 

[cobalt124]

Very interesting thread. I haven't read the book, but have heard about the case made. Apologies, I've spent a long time on

this and I'm not completely happy with it, some bits have gone missing, but I'm posting it anyway. Don't want to make waves

here, just asking questions.

Greg Bernhardt:
"...any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong...we all live immorally..."

He may have a point, based on the example given.

Pengwuino:
"...Human nature..."

I don't think it is. It looks more like a societal based choice. I also have my doubts about organized donation giving and

whether it actually helps in the long term, because I think for the most part it is done for the wrong reasons. I don't for

the most part.

Lacy33:
"...Greg...you are a dooer of good deeds. You have helped a lot..."

I can see this is true without even knowing the details.

Greg Bernhardt
"...think about a child we could vaccinate when we reach for soda..."

I believe that the solution would rest with the individual.

"...thousands of people suffer and die every day that could have been saved, but instead we buy those 24 packs of coke and

buy $30k trucks..."

We are sheep and we don't care.

Lacy33
"...in spite of the confusion and materialistic world your senior generations have left you..."

That is a major part of the problem here.

Greg Bernhardt
"...How do you feel about eating a candy bar when that money could have saved a child..."

Thinking about it, I don't feel good, which is why I don't think about it. I've always felt it was true, and never acted on

that feeling.

DanP
"Disguised Marxism"

Some of the things Marx said may apply in a positive way here. Utopias and social engineering do not work. I think Marx had

something evolutionary rather than revolutionary in mind, and for it to work the seed for this evolution would have to be on

fertile ground, rather than on the rocky ground with the weeds, the latter of which IMO is closer to our current situation.

DanP
"...raising to status is part of the human nature...which go as far as access to (more) mates. They are intrinsic part of the

human psychology and neurobiology..."

Isn't this a societal based choice as well? Saying that I am nowhere near qualified to comment on any science that may refute

this.

Ivan Seeking
"Matthew 19:16-26 "

My take is: The world is wrong and the rich man is unwilling to do anything about it, but he is unhappy with this. I don't

wan't to be seen as preaching, I think there is a solution that is secular, concrete, and can work.

Jarle
"...It's time to be pragmatic and not blindly follow "ideals"..."

It doesn't have to be idealistic. Its a matter of changing what is wrong and keeping what is right at the individual level.

Individuals consume and the effects are felt worldwide. Why can't individuals help each other, and the effects are felt

worldwide?

"...giving up everything you have, placing yourself in misery for others..."

If you feel it would put you in misery, it would fail.

"...you have the ability to give more money this way..."

Why is it only money that has to be given? (again neutral question).

"...Is it bad to contribute to society which relies on its population spending on what they don't need?..."

Not for everybody. But the attention in this discussion seems to be going to the people that least need the attention.

Greg Bernhardt
"...Is our exact society and way of life worth 10 million children dying every year from preventable causes?..."

Thats the question to ask. And the (unfortunate) resounding answer in words and actions (including my actions) is yes. The

price is worth paying and the negative consequences for both the starving and the society don't matter.

...Is it moral to reproduce...

"It's human nature."

Jarle?
"...None of us can individually save the humanity..."

But maybe a lot of individuals acting individually can.

Greg Bernhardt
"... the ideal is not about saving humanity. It's about saving one child when making a decision to buy something you don't

need..."

And if many individuals do it, the consequences on mankind are improved.

DanP
"...Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene?..."

There is no obligation. Only choice.

Reshma:
"...it is up to local communities and people (including me) to improve situations around them..."

I share this sentiment. The more of it the better.

krool
"Greg, you're just guilt tripping everyone. People are too lazy or don't care. It's that simple."

He's asking for an honest answer to honest questions IMO, without judging any answers he gets.

DanP
Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
"...The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in

food industry..."

And a denial of any resposibility by the individual. You trust the motives of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the

GM Food industry?

Greg Bernhardt
"...This is about personal responsibility..."

Exactly.

Greg Bernhardt
"...Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable?..."

No reason except for choice.

DanP
...But the reality is that it doesn't. If our moral cognition would impose this view, we would be all cuddly teddy bears

which would work "for the good of the species"...

Just because things happen as they do, doesn't mean they have to happen like that. I thought this was about the good of

individuals, not the species.

DanP?
...yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure...

Are you sure you are not doing this already? (neutral question)

Greg Bernhardt
There is also the case of hopelessness. We have given billions and billions and billions, and the problem never gets better.

Then maybe giving billions and billions and billions isn't the answer to the problem. More volunteers?

 

[DanP]

I think Marx had something evolutionary rather than revolutionary in mind, and for it to work the seed for this evolution would have to be on fertile ground, rather than on the rocky ground with the weeds, the latter of which IMO is closer to our current situation.

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

Isn't this a societal based choice as well? Saying that I am nowhere near qualified to comment on any science that may refute this.

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

Greg Bernhardt
"...Is our exact society and way of life worth 10 million children dying every year from preventable causes?..."

Thats the question to ask. And the (unfortunate) resounding answer in words and actions (including my actions) is yes. The price is worth paying and the negative consequences for both the starving and the society don't matter.

We wage wars everywhere to protect our society, the western way of life, the value of democracy. It seems that our society thinks is well worth killing, causing distress, refugees, others for those abstract concepts

...Is it moral to reproduce...

"It's human nature."

So it is raising to status.

DanP
"...Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene?..."
There is no obligation. Only choice.

This is what you think. A good point of view. Others in this thread already expressed they beleif that yes " the well-off should at least do ... x or y". This is the root of all evil, the way to Marxism.

DanP
Originally Posted by Greg Bernhardt
"...The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in

food industry..."

And a denial of any resposibility by the individual. You trust the motives of politicians, pharmaceutical companies and the

GM Food industry?

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

Greg Bernhardt
"...This is about personal responsibility..."

Exactly.

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

Greg Bernhardt
"...Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable?..."

No reason except for choice.

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

DanP
...But the reality is that it doesn't. If our moral cognition would impose this view, we would be all cuddly teddy bears

which would work "for the good of the species"...

Just because things happen as they do, doesn't mean they have to happen like that. I thought this was about the good of individuals, not the species.

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

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

...yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure...

Are you sure you are not doing this already? (neutral question)

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

 

[waht]

The middle class does not need a new iphone to live. A person in extreme poverty does need a vaccine or a piece of bread to live. One gets the iphone, the other gets no vaccine or bread.

Please see this post
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3089441&postcount=82

The middle class doesn't get the iphone out of thin air, but it works its a$$ off for it. If you give it away, along with all other unnecessary items to the point of bare necessities, you openly become an abject slave who works hard for other people, often sacrificing things you love, and spending less time with your family, eating less healthy foods, opting for a cheaper health insurance, you thereby become poorer and taking your loved ones with you.

The collective such effort of the US middle class would hardly make a dent in world's poverty. The real wealth of the US lies in natural resources, corporations, investments, real estate, rich people, highly skilled workforce etc. That's not something you can control or transfer so easily. In fact no one can. It is a emergent system out of a good economy.

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

 

[JDStupi]

I just have comments on the subject and not so much a general position. First I'd like to say that Albert Camus's "The Plague" deals heavily with the concepts of guilt and social responsibility from both a secular and, in the form of a Christian priest, a Christian perspective. The book has individuals that run the gamut of opinions, from those who help and volunteer, to those who exploit the situation.
I'd also like to say that this essentially reads like a classic Nietzschean "Morality of the strong vs Morality of the weak argument"...
And finally, I know DanP, you said that you werenn't endorsing the argument/suggestion made in post number 73, so I'm not directing this directly toward you or anyone just saying that I usually disagree with such sociobiological "explanations" for moral behavior, largely because of the almost fatalistic nature of it...It appeals to a shallow and premature understanding of nature vs nurture and attributes any characteristics to some combination of genetics and environment, but the problem is, is that it is pseudo-scientific. It uses scientific claims, but the idea itself is inherently non-falsifiable. There doesn't exist a way to test for the individual's specific mixture of genetics/environment/ personal history in order to come to a conclusion regarding the situation, and then from this people proclaim a moral rationilization based on an inadequate understanding of brain science. Certainly some people have certain proclivities, but we do not understand the brain basis of "free-will" enough in order to say from a scientific point of view, that this is the case. that said, we do have many examples from history of individuals who have overcome through discpline and a belief, and the idea that "they were special" seems to take responsibility off of the individual.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What matters is that out in the wild, in our society, the norm is not enforced. Look, as you said, ppl prefer iPhones instead of donating to Unicef. This is the status quo in your society and in mine.

Seemingly and I am arguing that is wrong.

No . We can't incriminate that person. And this is valid even in the case where a person choses not to save a child drowning in sea water. We can say that the person lacks courage to do so or is apathetic. But I think, lacking courage or being apathetic is not the same as being immoral.
However a person who throws a child in sea water willfully is an immoral person.

Very interesting! However if the person genuinely "freezes up" and panics at the sight of a child drowning, thus being unable to help, that is different. That person no longer has the choice. But if a perfectly able person walks by a drowning child, shrugs and heads for the local tavern for a brew, that is immoral. That is what I am talking about.

The middle class doesn't get the iphone out of thin air, but it works its a$$ off for it. If you give it away, along with all other unnecessary items to the point of bare necessities, you openly become an abject slave who works hard for other people, often sacrificing things you love, and spending less time with your family, eating less healthy foods, opting for a cheaper health insurance, you thereby become poorer and taking your loved ones with you.

Sure, but how much a person works makes no difference to the argument. Say on friday upon receiving their payment check a person is shown an iphone and sick child desperately in need of a vaccine. If the person takes the iphone and the child dies, how is that not wrong? If there was this option in some game show there would be massive societal outcry and yet it happens every day in the shadows.

The collective such effort of the US middle class would hardly make a dent in world's poverty. The real wealth of the US lies in natural resources, corporations, investments, real estate, rich people, highly skilled workforce etc. That's not something you can control or transfer so easily. In fact no one can. It is a emergent system out of a good economy.

I don't have any exact figures, but there are roughly 160 million middle class. If each gave only $100 a year, that is a lot of vaccines. But regardless, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, it's not about a global comprehensive solution. It's save one worthwhile life at a time when making spending choices.

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

Maybe you know Singer more than I, but I get the feeling he doesn't agree with your assertion from reading his book. We can have our societal wonders and still save lives with our better spending choices.

 

[DanP]

It uses scientific claims, but the idea itself is inherently non-falsifiable. There doesn't exist a way to test for the individual's specific mixture of genetics/environment/ personal history in order to come to a conclusion regarding the situation, and then from this people proclaim a moral rationilization based on an inadequate understanding of brain science. Certainly some people have certain proclivities, but we do not understand the brain basis of "free-will" enough in order to say from a scientific point of view, that this is the case. that said, we do have many examples from history of individuals who have overcome through discpline and a belief, and the idea that "they were special" seems to take responsibility off of the individual.

It is not such a disaster as you say. There is strong scientific evidence that expression of certain genes and the regulation of this expression modulates behavior. There are hundreds of studies done on this. Also good studies emerging lately from the field of behavioral genetics. And a lot of great studies in social psychology which show how many social factors and social cognition modulates behaviors.

I don't proclaim any morality steaming from biology and evolution. I claim the ultimate amorality of any such behavior. Humans are the most genetically indeterminate creature which walked the earth. Yet there are a lot of genetic propensities in each of us.

 

[waht]

Sure, but how much a person works makes no difference to the argument. Say on friday upon receiving their payment check a person is shown an iphone and sick child desperately in need of a vaccine. If the person takes the iphone and the child dies, how is that not wrong? If there was this option in some game show there would be massive societal outcry and yet it happens every day in the shadows.

Suppose you give it away and save a child. There is billions more to be saved. Are you going to be giving up your paycheck for the rest of your life?First in the OP, Singer states that any financial action used to purchase unnecessary items to survival is immoral in light of the fact that there are impoverished people. Therefore by the definition of this statement it follows that in order become moral one has to give away all of your wealth to charity. Then Singer states that it doesn't hurt to spend $5 a month on charity, and most people would do it.

Where does such wide disparity in argument come from? Between giving up all of your wealth and $5 a month? No matter what action you take, you will always be immoral according to Singer because it's unrealistic for anyone to give up all of their wealth.

The US government gives lots of financial aide to poor countries. Where did that money come from? through taxes everyone pays.

I don't have any exact figures, but there are roughly 160 million middle class. If each gave only $100 a year, that is a lot of vaccines. But regardless, as I've pointed out many times in this thread, it's not about a global comprehensive solution. It's save one worthwhile life at a time when making spending choices.

That would make 1.6 billion a year from the middle class.

Look at the list of top US charities:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html

Forty American billionaires have pledged at least half of their wealth to charitable causes – a combined value of at least $125 billion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2...ledge-125-billion-to-Bill-Gates-charity-drive

Maybe you know Singer more than I, but I get the feeling he doesn't agree with your assertion from reading his book. We can have our societal wonders and still save lives with our better spending choices.

I've read the 'Animal Liberation' and as a result I didn't want read any more of the author. Might as well be a vegetarian.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Suppose you give it away and save a child. There is billions more to be saved. Are you going to be giving up your paycheck for the rest of your life?

If it meets the second premise of the argument, why not.

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

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3088238&postcount=75

Where does such wide disparity in tone come from? Between giving up all of your wealth and $5 a month? No matter what action you take, you will always be immoral according to Singer.

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

That would make 1.6 billion a year from the middle class.

Look at the list of top US charities:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html

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

So billionaires are donating a percentage of their wealth. Why doesn't everyone? Keyword is percentage.

 

[akd_dka]

. But if a perfectly able person walks by a drowning child, shrugs and heads for the local tavern for a brew, that is immoral. That is what I am talking about.

Are you sure we should call that immoral and not apathetic ?
This is important issue. Cause I think the society by and large is apathetic and not immoral.
It would be a very strict yardstick to call it immoral.

Anyways ,without fussing over what's immoral and what's apathetic, I think books like "The Life you Can save" carry an important message. And I certainly hope it brings about appreciable social change.
Most of the times people don't do charity is because the "figurative drowning child" is not in front of their eyes.But books such as these help bring that child in plain view.

People like Bill Gates are coming forward and donating sizeable amounts. This is surely a source of inspiration. I am from India , and the trend is beginning amongst rich people here also. Mr Azim Premji has pledged 2 billion dollars for philanthropy.

I hope I can contribute my bit when I start earning my own money.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Are you sure we should call that immoral and not apathetic ?
This is important issue. Cause I think the society by and large is apathetic and not immoral.
It would be a very strict yardstick to call it immoral.

I kinda get what you are saying, but by definition apathy is "an absence of emotion or enthusiasm". So to me a person should still know saving the child is right even if they are apathetic. So they are both immoral and apathetic. Immoral that they don't save the child and apathetic that they don't care about the situation.

 

[DanP]

I

So billionaires are donating a percentage of their wealth. Why doesn't everyone? Keyword is percentage.

In a word, costs to the helper. Relative costs to self. It's easier to donate when you have garbageloads of money, let's say 10% of that income, which btw, is tax deductible in most tax systems, then to donate when you are a middle class family which is better off "donating" that 10% to the college fond of the kids, for example. When education costs hundreds of thousands in dollars, it;s a very natural behavior to think first and foremost to your kin.

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

Then there is diffusion of responsibility. Even if we accept that humans are responsible for the life of someone thousand of miles away (theory which I don accept), you face a very high level of diffusion of this responsibility in society. You can see this in cases where a criminal act takes place on streets and nobody does anything. Besides obvious cases like fear, when you hear someone screaming "Help me" the impact of the request is more diffused when more humans are present at scene. Help me who ? (This si called bystander effect in social psychology, and the recommendation made is that a victim in such conditions always make the request explicit and personal, such as "You man, there, in the blue shirt, please help me" )

Also, norms of social justice, equity, reciprocity, social repsonsability, seemingly operates very well when you relate to your in-groups, but are not so powerful when applied to out-groups.