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

[alt]

.. and then there's always the issue of corruption

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/millions-lost-in-foreign-aid-scam/story-e6freuzr-1226027016991

AUSTRALIA'S $4.5 billion foreign aid program is plagued by record levels of fraud, with millions of dollars being stolen by corrupt officials and overseas agencies.
AusAID has 175 cases of fraud under investigation - stretching across 27 countries and totalling millions of dollars.

Documents released under Freedom of Information expose a criminal trail in some of the world's poorest countries, with widespread theft of money and forging of receipts.

They also show how food and other supplies are being diverted from dirt-poor communities and sold on the black market at inflated prices.

While AusAID insists it is improving fraud control, the documents also reveal police are often reluctant to intervene and charge local criminals - frustrating the agency's attempts to recover missing aid money.

(@ octelcogopod; will respond to your post later)

 

[alt]

I think that first we would not be able to keep up the creation of millions of products and goods wasting natural resources of which people with money buy only to throw away later, and much of it isn't even recycled.

I agree, though people with newly developed spending power will be difficult to convince of this.

Second I would think as apeiron said that having a fair opportunity for all is the only way to reach a fair inequality.

A fair inequality ? I don't understand.

I think a lot of different factors are at play but the biggest ones are the limited resources and the limited space.

Which is a powerful argument AGAINST aiding third world into new found consumerism.

Globalization is not good because it makes it harder for isolated countries or groups of people to set up their own equilibrium of goods and jobs. When we have such a limited amount of different kinds of fuels and soil we can use, actual land that is usable and not disturbed by neighboring states and a global system that spans both politically, socially and economically we automatically are going to have a lot of inequality that spans the entire globe. I think since we are on this planet we are going to have to limit consumption tremendously, and then everyone can be rich but in a moderated manner.

Who will do the moderating ? Rich people consume more than poor people. Try telling a very rich person what they can do with their money and see where that gets you.

Enough for more essential stuff and not a bunch of useless plastic toys and 2 cell phones every year per person.

To tell a rich person that he or she can only spend their money on essential stuff is a bit weird. He / she won't feel very rich. The very essence of being (financially) rich is to have money to buy all the stuff you like.

If everyone was rich now of course the ecosystem would fail both in terms of labor but also resources, so right now the wealth of some are riding on the inequality of others and spending both their labor and a lot of resources which if the whole world would use at the same time would result in a collapse of sorts very soon.

Yes - that's why some are rich and others are poor. Though I'm sure that if those poor became rich, they would behave the same as the rich do now.

Of course I don't think this is a moral objection to changing things.

So it's best not to interfere much, and let evolution / natural forces take it's course. I agree.

PS; did you read the Australian article I linked above ? Powerful evidence of what I've been saying all along. Even those poorest people for whom aid is intended, are abusing it whenever and wherever they can, and seeking their own enrichment at the expense of their neigbours. GREED ! One of the two primary human motivators, IMO - the other being fear.

 

[alt]

.. and then there's always the issue of corruption

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/millions-lost-in-foreign-aid-scam/story-e6freuzr-1226027016991

AUSTRALIA'S $4.5 billion foreign aid program is plagued by record levels of fraud, with millions of dollars being stolen by corrupt officials and overseas agencies.
AusAID has 175 cases of fraud under investigation - stretching across 27 countries and totalling millions of dollars.

Documents released under Freedom of Information expose a criminal trail in some of the world's poorest countries, with widespread theft of money and forging of receipts.

They also show how food and other supplies are being diverted from dirt-poor communities and sold on the black market at inflated prices.

While AusAID insists it is improving fraud control, the documents also reveal police are often reluctant to intervene and charge local criminals - frustrating the agency's attempts to recover missing aid money.

(@ octelcogopod; will respond to your post later)

This is a further report following the one above;

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/diplomat-anger-at-wasted-png-aid/story-e6freuzr-1226027712458

 

[Roysun]

all and all no matter how we see it, humanity needs to focus their money on development and the production of inventions to make life and easier and the our world a better place. scientific development is the only cure from sickness to fuels. America, instead of spending 500 billion dollars annually, should spend it on free college education and scientific development. I am sure that once we use enough sunlight energy to supply all of our fuel then we wouldn't need to focus on planet killing material.

 

[chiro]

all and all no matter how we see it, humanity needs to focus their money on development and the production of inventions to make life and easier and the our world a better place. scientific development is the only cure from sickness to fuels. America, instead of spending 500 billion dollars annually, should spend it on free college education and scientific development. I am sure that once we use enough sunlight energy to supply all of our fuel then we wouldn't need to focus on planet killing material.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, however if you want that to become a reality you have to remove conflicts of interest from everyone involved, and I think that is pretty much impossible. I know its not optimistic, but I think that statement has a big dose of reality.

 

[Vespa71]

It is human instinct to help those needing, and also to mind one's own business. Television has presented graphically many needs for help.

It is natural that a wild animal starves to death somewhere in the mountain during winter. Is it still OK if we know it is about to happen? A cameracrew is filming a documentary about a child with AIDS in an african country: The crew can help, but choose to document natural course of life. It is good journalism, but is it immoral?

What I ask as a counterquestion to the thread-start: If we choose to not hear about disasters and famines on the news, are we then in the clear? Is it receiving the information that incriminate us?

If we choose to live scarcely, and make less money than we can: Are we then acting imorally, since we then are less able to help the needing?

"It is not my problem" is a useful statement when we need to stress down about other people's issues. I think it applies here.

 

[Consophist]

I didn't read through the entire thread, only the first few pages.

Point being though, it isn't about a single kid in a pond, drowning. This is about millions of people in the pond drowning.

The real question, is it more moral to save "Kid A", or "Kid B"?

So, spending money on that snickers bar, sure, is less moral than saving someone. But along the way, the line begins to blur and you wonder why the kid to the right got the vaccine over the kid to the left, but yet you don't have enough money to save them all.

Does that constitute not saving anyone? No. But is sure does help with wrapping your head around the reality of the situation.

 

[mathal]

Yes every disaster needs immediate responce but to make any seminal change in this planet people as a whole in developed countries have to accept that their 'high life' is on the backs of the 'low lives' of the third world. The only way I can see that is workable is to encourage contributions to viable-AKA 'real' non profit organizations in wills. We in developed countries -the majority of the people reading this fall into this category - are well aware that any offspring we have will do better than the majority of this planet will do in the best of circumstances.

mathal

p.s. the perjorative 'low life' inference was deliberate- a kick in the pants to 'us'.

 

[brushman]

What's wrong with helping increase the productivity in places like Africa? Surely helping to "jump start" Africa's economy would be of benefit to everyone?

It does make sense that everyone being rich is not sustainable. However, it also seems that we are far below this point, and that through strategic charity we can reach a higher net global wealth that maximizes happiness in the world.

 

[Willowz]

Throw at them money and make the problem go away? I don't think so.

 

[mheslep]

I have no time for theoretical arguments from the likes of Singer, who as far as I can tell does not share my understanding of the word moral.

If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about.

So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth?

That's not tongue in cheek, he's serious.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/

http://books.google.com/books?id=3i...&resnum=4&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
1995, London Spectator, "Killing Babies Isn’t Always Wrong"

Ted Kaczynski, aka The Unabomber, might have also had some interestingly crafted arguments. At least he was not given a Chair at Princeton.

 

[chiro]

I have no time for theoretical arguments from the likes of Singer, who as far as I can tell does not share my understanding of the word moral.

That's not tongue in cheek, he's serious.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/

http://books.google.com/books?id=3i...&resnum=4&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

1995, London Spectator, "Killing Babies Isn’t Always Wrong"

Ted Kaczynski, aka The Unabomber, might have also had some interestingly crafted arguments. At least he was not given a Chair at Princeton.

The only thing I want to add to your comment is that if you and your partner/wife/whatever decide to have kids, then you should really be responsible and take this responsibility seriously for not only being responsible for raising the kids but also to teach the kids how to be personally responsible themselves.

But the above does not support this guys argument: I think the guy is nuts personally.

If people do their absolute best to raise people of the world in the manner above (not only these but in a way that at least includes them), then they can hold their head up high and say that they did the best they could and that it ends up being the person themselves who makes their own decisions and knows that they need to be responsible for themselves.

For these people that advocate population reduction in any shape or form, they should be the first to line up and take their oath seriously: I'm sick and tired of people like this.