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

[Greg Bernhardt]

This is not about $400 handbags, you are generalizing this.

You are right, I am cherry picking a bit and that shows my wavering of thoughts from being practical to the ideal. But I am interested in the ideal because I think it's very compelling.

 

[DanP]

I would also argue western society owes some of it's progress to the exploitation of these third world countries.

How comes ? Please explain.

Education is needed, but not relevant to the argument.

Im not talking about education. I am talking about the bare necessitates of life food, vaccination (else you die). Before reproducing like rabbits, those humans should think if they are able to sustain the life of their offspring until they can doit on their own.

This whole theory is a displacement of responsibility. It shifts responsibility from parents to entities which are living thousand of miles away. This guy talks about morality. He is wrong. Even if accept his theory that morale has anything to do with this, the first thing I would ask is "Is it moral to reproduce when you know your child risk perishing of famine and lack of vaccinations?"

I think what you say is very disconnected to the actual event and situation. If you place yourself next to a child who needs a $15 vaccine to live to the next day and a movie ticket you really want to see. You would honestly choose the movie ticket?

None of us can individually save the humanity. It's Utopian. If you do the math, youll see that the money spent on status is nothing but a drop in an ocean.

 

[disregardthat]

Maybe we wouldn't need to donate, nor would our society collapse if we had started differently from the beginning.

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

You put it like as if we weren't as rich we are today the whole world could be saved. That is not how it is. Overpopulation will not be solved by collapsing rich societies or preventing them to exist. Only the presence of rich societies will enhance technology over the bounds of immediate necessity, and this is e.g. essential to solve future problems concerning local and global climate changes which will make more people suffer in the future. As constant water supply.

Take the example of airplanes. How would they come into being in a world where no interest were given to ideas like this? Today we rely on them to effectively give starving populations food to survive. I consider it absurd to say it's effectively immoral to deny society the moral freedom to care about these things. A consequencialist argument gets a consequencialist reply.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

None of us can individually save the humanity. It's Utopian. If you do the math, youll see that the money spent on status is nothing but a drop in an ocean.

You make some requests I may answer tomorrow, it's so late now. But... the ideal is not about saving humanity. It's about saving one child when making a decision to buy something you don't need. So say, what does it matter, we can't save them all. But no matter what poor choices their parents made, they are here now and your decision matters to that one child. You may condemn that child now and rationalize the decision, but I think you'd choose differently if you knew that child.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Take the example of airplanes. How would they come into being in a world where no interest were given to ideas like this? Today we rely on them to effectively give starving populations food to survive. I consider it absurd to say it's effectively immoral to deny society the moral freedom to care about these things.

I don't see how invention and ambition are incompatible with the argument.

 

[DanP]

So say, what does it matter, we can't save them all. But no matter what poor choices their parents made, they are here now and your decision matters to that one child.

But it does not solves the underlying problem. That being, tomorrow another one of those children will be brought to life by irresponsible parents. That a new entity will need to be saved. This kind of help will amount at nothing, but to create a vicious cycle .

No, this is not the solution.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

No, this is not the solution.

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

 

[disregardthat]

I don't see how invention and ambition are incompatible with the argument.

The point is that no funding would be given to inventing new things such as air-planes. It is non-essential.

 

[DanP]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child with each spending decision.

It would be interesting to see how many lives he saved :P Or what he did with they money he got for publishing this book. Interesting, but irrelevant.

But yeah, IMO this guy doesn't understand the first thing about human nature, and the importance of reaching and displaying status signals in any social group whatsoever. It's an evolved behavior, probably going on the lines of a Zahavian handicap, and its adaptive. Not that you can't save a child and make that a Zahavian peacock tail, that works too, but as I said, expecting someone to do this is just a shift of responsibility.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh this is in the philosophy forum... no wonder it felt weird in here.

And by the way, there have been numbers thrown about as to how much it would cost per year to reasonably vaccinate every child and give every country an acceptable standard of water and basic necessities like that. The conclusion was that you're not going to be talking about small deviations from our "exact way of life".

Also, DanP, you have to remember that the success of a family in the poorest nations, as it has always been for every primitive culture, is a consequence of how many kids they can produce. It's ALL manual labor, it's not like here where we have welfare systems to make sure kids don't starve and have their vaccinations. You actually need to be a quite successful civilization before the idea flips where fewer children means higher success.

 

[Pengwuino]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

You also must realize that as to the analogy of the drowning child, sure you can save him. However, what if tomorrow he's stuck in a burning building? Then the next day he's being attacked by a dog. Are you a good person to save him from drowning but not from the burning building? By his argument, no, you're pretty much screwed, everyone is a bad person always.

Then the word "bad" becomes meaningless.

 

[DanP]

Also, DanP, you have to remember that the success of a family in the poorest nations, as it has always been for every primitive culture, is a consequence of how many kids they can produce. It's ALL manual labor, it's not like here where we have welfare systems to make sure kids don't starve and have their vaccinations. You actually need to be a quite successful civilization before the idea flips where fewer children means higher success.

Im not arguing economics here. I am arguing that calling status seeking behaviors immoral is turning the blind eye to the realities of life. And if this whole issue have anything to do with moral cognition, it's way more immoral to bring childs to life only to make them work for your family.

In fact, I don't believe this has anything to do with morality. Both behaviors are amoral in my eyes.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The point is that no funding would be given to inventing new things such as air-planes. It is non-essential.

There are likely a few essential reasons for building planes, but overall maybe we wouldn't need planes to give them food if we had this mentality from the start. The Zulu were just fine until the Dutch or whomever came along.

It would be interesting to see how many lives he saved :P Or what he did with they money he got for publishing this book. Interesting, but irrelevant.

He talks about it. I think he donates around 70%.

But yeah, IMO this guy doesn't understand the first thing about human nature, and the importance of reaching and displaying status signals in any social group whatsoever. It's an evolved behavior, probably going on the lines of a Zahavian handicap, and its adaptive. Not that you can't save a child and make that a Zahavian peacock tail, that works too, but as I said, expecting someone to do this is just a shift or responsibility.

No, he does. This is one small argument he makes on the first page. The next couple hundred pages he breaks everything down and talks in a practical and realistic way. I wanted to post this because the ideal is compelling and hard to dismiss if you take it as it is.

Stomping on a guys head to take over their tribe was also evolved behavior, but we have the ability to keep evolving and improving.

 

[DanP]

Stomping on a guys head to take over their tribe was also evolved behavior, but we have the ability to keep evolving and improving.

You think we evolved out of this ? IMO its enough to look at any electoral processes to see that we still stomp on/over each other heads to take over the tribe. But we learned to display our aggressiveness appropriate to the social context. Who was the one who put targeting crosses over Giffords's head , to talk just about one of the latest development in the wake of Tucson shootings ?

 

[DanP]

But I think we both agree killing is bad.

Killing is amoral IMO.

Is the social context of killing which makes you either look like a hero,a recipient of a congress medal or makes you an outcast hunted by law enforcement for confinement and execution.

 

[Reshma]

Singer is not offering a solution to solve all the worlds problems. He is offering a solution to save one child who is here now (who deserves to live) with each spending decision.

My parents did experience borderline poverty back in the days when India was among the poorest of the nations. As someone from a developing nation, I can very well understand and relate to the problems of severe deprivation of food and medicines. I have not read Singer's book, but I do agree with one thing that one can at least cut back on some unnecessary luxury to give someone a necessary essential.

This person came to my mind when I read this thread:


Whenever I see eating competitions akin to "Man versus food" on international channels, somehow it makes my stomach churn seeing the amount of food being wasted.

 

[DanP]

but I do agree with one thing that one can at least cut back on some unnecessary luxury to give someone a necessary essential.

Why ? Explain to me why do you consider yourself or others so special that you are entitled to receive the necessities of life from the wealth of other persons ? How can you expect to be fed by others ?

You are not special by any means whatsoever. Nobody is. Nobody owes you nothing. If we want to give, we give because we want so. Not because you believe you have the right to live on my expense, and think I should drive a cheaper car.

P.S

The you in this post was used "generically" to indicate another party, the generic "you". It is not a reference to the poster and should not be interpreted as a personal attack.

 

[Reshma]

Why ? Explain to me why do you consider yourself or others so special that you are entitled to receive the necessities of life from the wealth of other persons ? How can you expect to be fed by others ?

You are not special by any means whatsoever. Nobody is. Nobody owes you nothing. If we want to give, we give because we want so. Not because you believe you have the right to live on my expense, and think I should drive a cheaper car.

P.S

The you in this post was used "generically" to indicate another party, the generic "you". It is not a reference to the poster and should not be interpreted as a personal attack.

You misunderstood what I was trying to convey. Living an entire life on charity is a bad idea but I am referring to the ones who cannot afford the bare necessities. In such case, it is necessary for the well-off ones to intervene.

I agree, no one is under an obligation to give charity to someone, but when one can cut back on many unnecessary spendings (like someone having 2 TVs when needs only one, taking an SUV alone to work when one can carpool), it can go a long way in making resources available for others.

 

[DanP]

You misunderstood what I was trying to convey.

I don't think I misunderstood.

Living an entire life on charity is a bad idea but I am referring to the ones who cannot afford the bare necessities. In such case, it is necessary for the well-off ones to intervene.

Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene ? What twisted morale can lead one to rationalize that the rich ones should give more than they give already in taxes to somebody else ?

This is what I asked you to explain. WHY on the Earth do you think it's "necessary" to intervene and expect someone to feed and clothes somebody else ? Why expect help instead of helping yourself ?

I agree, no one is under an obligation to give charity to someone, but when one can cut back on many unnecessary spendings (like someone having 2 TVs when needs only one, taking an SUV alone to work when one can carpool), it can go a long way in making resources available for others.

Please. I like driving SUVs in mountains. I like driving German cars in the city. I love them.
Due to my somehow eclectic interests, and my interest in wilderness, I consider almost a necessity to own two types of cars. One for the mountains, one for the city.

Why should I carpool ? To depend on others ? I value my personal freedom too much to depend on the car of X or Y. I like to drive alone or with a women in my right. Its funny and relaxing. I don't want to listen to idiotic chit chat of my coworkers when I drive. And this is just a regeneration benefit I derive from it, never-mind the raw utility of disposing at will of a mean of transportation.

it can go a long way in making resources available for others.

It can, but nobody should expect others to doit. You shouldn't think that "at least X should give something of his surplus to others". Nobody is under obligation to share his resources with anyone , save for taxes. You should be grateful if he does, but you shouldn't think that he has too, or that's the least thing she/he can do.

 

[Reshma]

Please. I like driving SUVs in mountains. I like driving German cars in the city. I love them.
Due to my somehow eclectic interests, and my interest in wilderness, I consider almost a necessity to own two types of cars. One for the mountains, one for the city.

Why should I carpool ? To depend on others ? I value my personal freedom too much to depend on the car of X or Y. I like to drive alone or with a women in my right. Its funny and relaxing. I don't want to listen to idiotic chit chat of my coworkers when I drive. And this is just a regeneration benefit I derive from it, never-mind the raw utility of disposing at will of a mean of transportation.

Off-topic:
I live in one of the most populated cities in the world. I have my private vehicle, but I recently started taking the train to work, because it saves a lot of fuel expenses and I reach my work place faster instead of being stuck in traffic. If carpooling mitigates the traffic situation I would rather put up with annoying co-passengers than being stranded for longer hours in traffic jams.

Charity is not something only a rich person can do. I don't expect a rich first world nation to solve the problems happening on my streets. Apart from situations of natural disasters, it is up to local communities and people (including me) to improve situations around them.

 

[DanP]

Off-topic:
I live in one of the most populated cities in the world. I have my private vehicle, but I recently started taking the train to work, because it saves a lot of fuel expenses and I reach my work place faster instead of being stuck in traffic.

Yes, but the reason of this is because you fulfill a necessity for yourself. You save money for fuel which you will spend on other things and the train gets you in time at work :P

If carpooling mitigates the traffic situation I would rather put up annoying co-passengers by than being stranded for hours in traffic jams.

How can carpooling mitigate the traffic situation ? It's not like the number of passengers in your car will have any influence whatsoever on the final state of traffic.

What happens in reality is an equilibrium situation. As more and more ppl will carpool, the roads will become free enough that more and more ppl will be find attractive to drive comfortably on the road alone. In reality you will not see any improvement in traffic, what you will see it's an equilibrium which is probably already in place.

 

[K Rool]

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

 

[akd_dka]

I am also from India . And I feel that the apathy shown by well-to-do people(myself included) from India towards the poor and downtrodden is shocking . It isn't even a case of "out of sight out of mind" for us Indians. We are quite desensitized to the poverty. So in that way we are more guilty than non-Indians. I hope I may contribute at least something to the society when I start earning my self.

@Reshma , great video.
It may well be argued that giving bread earning capacity than giving bread is more noble.
But still giving bread is better than doing nothing. That guy is real superhero , as the video title suggests. And in some cases as in that video giving bread can be a life saver .

Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene ? What twisted morale can lead one to rationalize that the rich ones should give more than they give already in taxes to somebody else ?

It can, but nobody should expect others to doit. You shouldn't think that "at least X should give something of his surplus to others". Nobody is under obligation to share his resources with anyone , save for taxes. You should be grateful if he does, but you shouldn't think that he has too, or that's the least thing she/he can do.

It is not at all necessary. And the "well-off" ones are under no obligations. If they feel like donating only then, they should.
If a person is living a straight and non-corrupt life he is doing quite well.

In India , corruption is a bigger problem than people not doing charity.

 

[Lacy33]

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

Ah, don't count me in on this one K Rool. I may be simple and I may be real lazy but not so much I don't care.

I am totally this thing went the distance without a rally to a cause. Any flippin cause.
Seems like all the people who really died trying to get the attention of any amount of people to care just wasted themselves for nothing if it ends like this.
Nobody is guilt tripping anyone.
some people are just sayin!

Now I am going to look for you to be my friend. :!) Here I come...

 

[DanP]

Seems like all the people who really died trying to get the attention of any amount of people to care just wasted themselves for nothing if it ends like this.

Who died trying ?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't think I misunderstood.

Why is it necessary ? Under what obligation are the "well-off" ones to intervene ? What twisted morale can lead one to rationalize that the rich ones should give more than they give already in taxes to somebody else ?

This is what I asked you to explain. WHY on the Earth do you think it's "necessary" to intervene and expect someone to feed and clothes somebody else ? Why expect help instead of helping yourself ?

Because extreme poverty is usually not the fault of that person. It is not because they are lazy. There are places in Africa and India where people really don't have options and they can't escape.

DanP, I really think you are suffering from not being able to identify with the victim. If you can in person go to a hospital and see a child on a bed suffering and not give the doctor $15 for a vaccine then I guess you would be consistent, but I think you'd cave for the right reasons. But because you are in front on a computer in a relatively comfortable environment thousands of miles away, you can afford to look away and rationalize with social science objections.

Think of the pond scenario again. You'd jump in the pond to save a drowning child, no? If the only option to save the child were to hand over $15, you'd immediately hand over $15, no? Then why are you telling me you'd walk away from the drowning child now?

 

[DanP]

Because extreme poverty is usually not the fault of that person. It is not because they are lazy. There are places in Africa and India where people really don't have options and they can't escape.

I agree, but the solution does not stay in individual donations. How many of you involved in this thread knows who was Norman Borlaug ? The solution to help those ppl is simply to come up with the solutions at the scale Borlaug did. The answer is in globalization politics, further progress in genetics and molecular medicine, and applied genetics in food industry.

IMO individual donations are as I said, a trap. First of all, as we seen in this thread already,
some ppl came to the conclusion that "when you have a surplus", you *SHOULD AT LEAST* give some away. This is not so. You give if you want, and instead of other ppl expecting you to give what you have, they should be grateful if you choose to give.

DanP, I really think you are suffering from not being able to identify with the victim. If you can in person go to a hospital and see a child on a bed suffering and not give the doctor $15 for a vaccine then I guess you would be consistent, but I think you'd cave for the right reasons. But because you are in front on a computer in a relatively comfortable environment thousands of miles away, you can afford to look away and rationalize with social science objections.

I walked the indian subcontinent, I worked in Sri Lanka, seen some god forbidden communities there, I seen poverty in Asia, I seen it in my country. I seen old ppl in hospitals , waiting for hours to have a MD look at them, barely able to contain their pain and not fall from the stairs for exhaustion. I seen in communist time old ppl with a rationalizing card waiting at interminable queues to get a bottle of milk. I seen enough ****, as many of us did.

Im not made of stone, each of those events caused emotions in me.

You can't accuse me of looking away. But yes, you can accuse me of being somehow disconnected now as we speak. Disconnected enough to say :

1. The solution to world social problems lies in politics and applied sciences, not in individual donations.
2. That the idea that ppl should cut on their "luxury items" is against human nature. Humans are obsessed with status, there is little surprise here, and those items are very powerful signals.
3. That nobody should believe that entity X has the obligation to help entity Y. It all good when X does it, but our society should not grow reliant on a higher class for survival. It's a two edged sword. IMO reliance on the higher class for survival will only widen the social gap
and will slowly institute a hegemony of the higher class over the clients.
4. Once you came to believe that "some persons should at least give", you are slowly closing yourself to Marxism.

Think of the pond scenario again. You'd jump in the pond to save a drowning child, no? If the only option to save the child were to hand over $15, you'd immediately hand over $15, no? Then why are you telling me you'd walk away from the drowning child now?

The immediate vicinity of a drowning kid would cause a very powerful activation of the limbic system in my brain. Powerful enough to override my frontal cortex, and cause me to act by either becoming frozen, either assume the risk and act to save the child, even if the water conditions are a threat to my well being.

The simple evocation of the scenario does not cause the same limbic system activation. In effect I can rationalize.

I don't tell you that I would walk away from the kid. I am telling you that IMO giving money for 3rd world countries is not a solution. That the best way we can help them is by politics. And that anyone who believe into variants of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is dangerously close to marxism.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I don't tell you that I would walk away from the kid. I am telling you that IMO giving money for 3rd world countries is not a solution. That the best way we can help them is by politics. And that anyone who believe into variants of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is dangerously close to marxism.

The difference here is that I am asking to consider a very narrow circumstance and you keep trying to make it into a broad solution. It won't save the world, but it will save that one kid. That is all I am saying. Isn't saving that one kid worth $15? Work on politics is besides the point.

 

[DanP]

The difference here is that I am asking to consider a very narrow circumstance and you keep trying to make it into a broad solution. It won't save the world, but it will save that one kid. That is all I am saying. Isn't saving that one kid worth $15? Work on politics is besides the point.

I think it's more correct to say that 15 USD will feed a kid for X days. Or that it can buy X vaccine doses. Or X antibiotics doses which can be used to treat a men for X days. there is no guarantee that 15 USD / head will save anyone.

Im also telling that I don't want anyone to impose his twisted morale on our society. It;s golden if you are a charitable person, and you choose to give and try to save others.

But for me it becomes a problem of grave political implications every time somebody tries to
shove such ides as rationalizing what is a unnecessary luxury for me and asking me to cut on it. Today they ask you to give from your so called unnecessary luxury, tomorrow they'll bit the hand who fed them.

If Singer would just make a passionate plead to help others, I would be OK with is view. But no, he tries to make it a "moral imperative". This is what is wrong with his view. Ofc , he is philosophizer, so he can afford to emit anything. But I prefer to swim with the likes of Borlaug. That man saved billions, very few ppl really know who he was and what he did, and
he did that without trying to impose his philosophical view of the world on others.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I think it's more correct to say that 15 USD will feed a kid for X days. Or that it can buy X vaccine doses. Or X antibiotics doses which can be used to treat a men for X days. there is no guarantee that 15 USD / head will save anyone.

I don't know what the success rate for the measles or smallpox vaccine is, but since no one really gets in the US, I'd conclude it's quite high. Saying there is no guarantee is not a good reason to refuse a boy a vaccine.

Im also telling that I don't want anyone to impose his twisted morale on our society. It;s golden if you are a charitable person, and you choose to give and try to save others.

Our own morale compass should impose this view. Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable? How is that twisted?

But for me it becomes a problem of grave political implications every time somebody tries to
shove such ides as rationalizing what is a unnecessary luxury for me and asking me to cut on it.

It is not anyone else other than yourself who should decide what is necessary and what is not. If you feel buying a $200 watch instead of a $100 alternative watch is worth the ramifications of not being able to use that $100 difference to save some children's lives, then so be it. I am not calling for some government mandate nor is Singer. This is about personal responsibility. Would you feel embarrassed if there were an article on the front page of the news about how you decided to spend extra money on a watch instead of saving a child?

If Singer would just make a passionate plead to help others, I would be OK with is view. But no, he tries to make it a "moral imperative". This is what is wrong with his view. Ofc , he is philosophizer, so he can afford to emit anything. But I prefer to swim with the likes of Borlaug. That man saved billions, very few ppl really know who he was and what he did, and
he did that without trying to impose his philosophical view of the world on others.

Yes he is a philosopher, this is what he does. Before you assume too much about him and his views I will again state that this whole thread is about one small argument he makes early in the book. I think you'd enjoy the complete book where he fleshes everything out is turns more realistic and practical than you think. For one thing he values volunteering time more than money. Certainly there are people like Borlaug who did great work as a humanitarian and Buffet who has pledged billions, but we can't all be these people. This argument is something everyone can be aware of and use to make better spending choices.

 

[Lacy33]

Who died trying ?

Martin Luther King
Ghandi
JFK
John Lennon
Joan of Arc
Benazir Bhutto
"Hermila Garcia, the 38-year-old chief of police of the town of Meoqui in the Mexican state of Chihuahua."
I'm sure I forgot one. Pardon.
My great, great grandpa was killed by Napoleon in a street fight. Grandpa was just in the hood trying to keep the French gang off the street.

And so on.

Really Mr. DanP
These are just the big names. How about all the little folks who serve in the forces. Fire, police, Army and so on?
How about the UN workers, and any aid program who goes into a dangerous,uncomfortable place to do good and gets hurts, sick or worse?
Blah blah blahh you know already.
Now go and do good!

 

[DanP]

Our own morale compass should impose this view. Why wouldn't we all want to be golden and charitable? How is that twisted?

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", and all the world would be a great kibbutz. I am more inclined to believe that there is a balance between our helping behaviors and our personal needs which sits in a form of a Nash equilibrium. IMO attempts to push the balance too far artificially, through social engineering, are destined to fail.

I am not calling for some government mandate nor is Singer.

It;s not you or Singer which I am worried about. Is the radical leftists who will very fast begin to think it;s natural and a right of the poor to be supported by the rich.

This is about personal responsibility. Would you feel embarrassed if there were an article on the front page of the news about how you decided to spend extra money on a watch instead of saving a child?

Are you appealing to my limbic system ? It won't work with me. But you have talent at framing your questions to appeal to emotions. I say framing, for you should have asked me "donate 15 USD instead of buying a watch which is 100 USD more expensive... ". But yeah, shame is a very powerful emotion. One of the motivators behind social conformity. If we would live in a world where the press should write such articles and the vast majority of your social group would exercise restrain and limit their status seeking behaviors, yes I would probably conform due to the enormous social pressure. But we do not live in such a world. We live in a world where driving a Mercedes opens you doors and gets you chicks :P Sad ? Probably. Natural ? Yes. Our neurobiology and some social forces play tricks on us.

I think you'd enjoy the complete book where he fleshes everything out is turns more realistic and practical than you think.

I would probably enjoy the book yes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[DanP]

Now go and do good!

Yes ma'am !

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

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", and all the world would be a great kibbutz. I am more inclined to believe that there is a balance between our helping behaviors and our personal needs which sits in a form of a Nash equilibrium. IMO attempts to push the balance too far artificially, through social engineering, are destined to fail.

It doesn't, but I think we all have the capacity to have that golden charitable compass. Our ability to discuss it proves that. Is our morale will really this weak? I agree balance is key and realistic. But I and Singer feel everyone could do a lot more. Certainly go see that movie on the weekend and buy a nice silk tie. But there must be better conscious effort to weigh and consider these alternate options to help some humanity that are helpless. The only people who complain about having to help and are who are in the position to help.

It;s not you or Singer which I am worried about. Is the leftists who will very fast begin to think it;s natural and a right of the poor to be supported by the rich.

The extreme poor do deserve to be helped and supported. I'm not talking about people on welfare.

We live in a world where driving a Mercedes opens you doors and gets you chicks :P Sad ? Probably. Natural ? Yes. Our neurobiology and some social forces play tricks on us.

But again we do have the capacity to rise above. 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.

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.

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.