Philosophy
In Famine, Affluence and Morality, Peter Singer argues that persons in affluent countries have a moral obligation to donate at least some of their income to organization designed to combat global famine. While most of us take donating to Oxfam to be a charitable act, Singer argues that for most of us, such donations are morally obligatory.
In arguing for this conclusion, Singer asks us to consider a scenario like the following:
Janice is on the way to the club in her new Manolo Blahnik stilettos (yea, surprise, surprise, I know what Manolo Blahniks are). She sees a small child drowning in a shallow pond. In order to save the child, she?ll have to wade into the pond, ruining her new shoes.
Clearly, we should think Janice an asshole if she chooses her shoes over the child?s life.
Singer thinks that this situation is no different, morally, from the situation of the person who spends however much on Manolo Blahniks instead of donating most of that money to Oxfam and buying less expensive shoes.
In fact, Singer?s position is more extreme. He thinks that it would be wrong to the buy less expensive shoes as well. Starving children need food, no one needs stilettos (or Starbucks coffee, or whatever).
Now, let?s consider the following three propositions which I think most of my readers will consider true of themselves.
1. I know that I can help feed a starving child in, say, Somalia, by donating what, from my perspective, is an insignificant amount of money to Oxfam or some other organization designed to combat famine.
2. I don?t donate money to Oxfam or an Oxfam-like organization, but instead spend much of my income on things I don?t need.
3. I?m not an asshole.
But, light of Singer?s argument, it?s not clear that all three propositions can be true.
So, this is the challenge (which is not unfamiliar to anyone who has studied moral philosophy): Either figure out how all three propositions can be true or reject one.
How do you respond?
- The Effects Of Professional Philosophers
Peter Singer has another op/ed in the New York Times Magazine, this one on health care. A colleague asked me a while back if there was a philosopher still living who has had any effect on contemporary popular American discourse. Peter Singer's work...
- Zoos And Moral Responsibility
An interesting question from Lee:I posted a link to a diary on DailyKos asking people to petition Mayor Bloomberg to maintain funding to the Bronx Zoo. I included a link where one could donate to the zoo itself. A friend replied, somewhat facetiously,...
- Crispin Sartwell's Challenge On The Moral Justification Of State Power
Crispin Sartwell has a new book out and issues this challenge:My irritating yet astounding new book Against the State (SUNY Press) argues that (1) The political state or government rests on violence (force and coercion). (2) Violence is always wrong...
- The Importance Of Recognition
I'm in full dissertation mode. It has been hard to post regularly or even think about non-dissertation-related topics. So, I've decided to write about what I've been thinking about in relation to the dissertation. In the past few months,...
- Starvation...perpetual Human Issue
Wikipedia... Signs and symptoms Individuals experiencing starvation lose substantial fat (adipose) and muscle mass as the body breaks down these tissues for energy. Catabolysis is the process of a body breaking down its own muscles and other tissues...
Philosophy
Let's Have a Toast for the Assholes
In Famine, Affluence and Morality, Peter Singer argues that persons in affluent countries have a moral obligation to donate at least some of their income to organization designed to combat global famine. While most of us take donating to Oxfam to be a charitable act, Singer argues that for most of us, such donations are morally obligatory.
In arguing for this conclusion, Singer asks us to consider a scenario like the following:
Janice is on the way to the club in her new Manolo Blahnik stilettos (yea, surprise, surprise, I know what Manolo Blahniks are). She sees a small child drowning in a shallow pond. In order to save the child, she?ll have to wade into the pond, ruining her new shoes.
Clearly, we should think Janice an asshole if she chooses her shoes over the child?s life.
Singer thinks that this situation is no different, morally, from the situation of the person who spends however much on Manolo Blahniks instead of donating most of that money to Oxfam and buying less expensive shoes.
In fact, Singer?s position is more extreme. He thinks that it would be wrong to the buy less expensive shoes as well. Starving children need food, no one needs stilettos (or Starbucks coffee, or whatever).
Now, let?s consider the following three propositions which I think most of my readers will consider true of themselves.
1. I know that I can help feed a starving child in, say, Somalia, by donating what, from my perspective, is an insignificant amount of money to Oxfam or some other organization designed to combat famine.
2. I don?t donate money to Oxfam or an Oxfam-like organization, but instead spend much of my income on things I don?t need.
3. I?m not an asshole.
But, light of Singer?s argument, it?s not clear that all three propositions can be true.
So, this is the challenge (which is not unfamiliar to anyone who has studied moral philosophy): Either figure out how all three propositions can be true or reject one.
How do you respond?
- The Effects Of Professional Philosophers
Peter Singer has another op/ed in the New York Times Magazine, this one on health care. A colleague asked me a while back if there was a philosopher still living who has had any effect on contemporary popular American discourse. Peter Singer's work...
- Zoos And Moral Responsibility
An interesting question from Lee:I posted a link to a diary on DailyKos asking people to petition Mayor Bloomberg to maintain funding to the Bronx Zoo. I included a link where one could donate to the zoo itself. A friend replied, somewhat facetiously,...
- Crispin Sartwell's Challenge On The Moral Justification Of State Power
Crispin Sartwell has a new book out and issues this challenge:My irritating yet astounding new book Against the State (SUNY Press) argues that (1) The political state or government rests on violence (force and coercion). (2) Violence is always wrong...
- The Importance Of Recognition
I'm in full dissertation mode. It has been hard to post regularly or even think about non-dissertation-related topics. So, I've decided to write about what I've been thinking about in relation to the dissertation. In the past few months,...
- Starvation...perpetual Human Issue
Wikipedia... Signs and symptoms Individuals experiencing starvation lose substantial fat (adipose) and muscle mass as the body breaks down these tissues for energy. Catabolysis is the process of a body breaking down its own muscles and other tissues...