“Donating money to famine relief programs isn’t optional. It’s a moral obligation.” Peter Singer
Ordinary people are actually evil, which is the claim of Singer’s highly controversial ethics paper
He says it’s obligatory to donate most of your spare cash to charity. Any other course of action is ethically wrong and kind of “evil.”
For Singer, this theory applies to anyone who lives in a capitalist society
Singer basically says that it is evil if you don’t donate all of your spare cash to charity to remedy famine and other horrible things.
But, before we go into his paper, allow me to introduce Peter Singer briefly. He is an Australian philsopher who was born in Melbourne. In his practical ethics of 1979, he analyzes why and how living beings’ interests should be weighed
For example, Singer argues that we should try not only to reduce suffering but to reduce this suffering in the most effective manner possible. He also argued in the past that by buying oil from dictators, we are effectively buying stolen goods which belong to the people of the country and not one man and his goons alone.
In Singer’s view, not sending most of our money to charity makes you and me pretty evil people
Let’s have a look into this theory, which sounds preposterous at first glance. But no matter how hard one tries to deny it. Singer has got a point. It’s just a point we won’t like to hear. We also won’t like to admit that he has a point. Singer talks about obligatory and supererogatory actions.
The definition of supererogation is the technical term for the class of actions that go “beyond the call of duty.”
Roughly speaking, supererogatory acts are morally good, although not (strictly) required. All other human actions are obligatory. That means we must do them. We are morally obliged to do these things. We must not make the mistake, though, to confuse Singer’s views with anti capitalism.
Capitalism is very far from a perfect system, but so far we have yet to find anything that clearly does a better job of meeting human needs than a regulated capitalist economy coupled with a welfare and health care system that meets the basic needs of those who do not thrive in the capitalist economy. Singer
Singer then adds that if anyone finds him a better system, he is immediately on board
He has some soft spots for the ideas of Marx, but also a lot of criticism. I can follow him here, Marx had quite a lot of “magical thinking” going on when it comes to capitalism.
“Marx saw that capitalism is a wasteful, irrational system, a system which controls us when we should be controlling it. That insight is still valid; but we can now see that the construction of a free and equal society is a more difficult task than Marx realised.” Singer
― Jules Renard
In Singer’s view, we are morally obliged to donate all of this money to charity to be able to consider ourselves “good” and “moral” people
Singer says that one of the things we are obliged to do is donating as much of our spare cash as we can to relief organisations such as Oxfam or Unicef. These organisations use this money, among other things, trying to prevent or remedy famine. So, if you are affluent, then you must do this according to Singer.
Some more examples of obligatory things that you have to adhere are the premise that you must not murder anyone or that you must catch someone when they drop from somewhere.
Singer explains his theories like this: Superogation, which is comprised of supererogatory acts, is praiseworthy but not morally required
Superogatory acts are morally discouraged but not prohibited. However, the concept is controversial, with some dispute as to whether superogatory acts genuinely exist.
In our capitalist society, giving money to a charity organsiation is fine, but there is nothing wrong with not giving any money to charity either. A charitable person is usually praised by those around him. But a non charitable person is not condemned either.
Singer says that instead of buying a new car, new clothes or a new phone we should take all of that money and donate it to charity
You can imagine the outrage when he published this. He basically told people that spending money on luxuries instead of famine relief is unjustified and evil. Let’s give him a shot so that he can explain his theory in more detail. You might be surprised that his argument is actually rock solid. Even if it remains quite theoretical. It would be nigh impossible to implement his ideas on a global scale.
For Singer, not giving most of your money to famine relief means you have done something evil, wrong, and bad
So, let’s look at my day today. I went for a coffee, I bought some ice cream and I had a drink at a bar with my wife. For Singer, this is evil because I didn’t need to spend money on any of these things. I could have spent those 40 dollars on famine relief instead.
Here is a simplified version of the claims that Singer makes in his paper
If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, then you must morally do it. This is the most controversial claim on page 235. You can find it at the end of the paragraph.
Hunger, war, disability, and disease are very bad. This second premise sounds very plausible.
The issue must be a thing of moral significance
By donating to these organisations, we can do something good and prevent hunger, famine, and disease. This is an empirical claim and obviously true.
The conclusion of the paper is that we must donate this money, and we are obligated to do it. Singer says it is morally necessary to donate our money to relieve agencies instead of spending it on luxuries.
I think many of us will agree that premise one is the controversial claim. The others are quite clear and descriptive
You can make excellent arguments against this view. For example that this view is too radical. Peter Singer lives his life kinda like this. He is still alive and doesn’t live a very luxurious life. But most people don’t donate all their money to charity.
So, are we doing something bad without even realising it? Is Singer on the wrong track here? What does he actually have to say to support this very controversial claim? Let’s have a look into it, shall we?
There is quite a famous example given by Singer
Imagine you are walking past a shallow pond. There is a child in that pond, and the child is drowning. So, you jump inside the pond and pull it out. Your clothes are getting muddy in the process, and your leather shoes are now ruined. Not pulling out the child because your shoes would get wet would be really bad.
It would make you objectively a really horrible person
The cost for you to step in and save the child is low. Your own personal sacrifice is low and of no moral significance. The death of the child is a very bad thing, though. You will likely agree with me on this, I hope. If there was a group of people and you told them you didn’t interfere because your shoes would have been ruined. These people would be terrified.
Singer says we can abstract from this example to a more general principle
This example is not bad because there is water involved or children. It’s bad because there is a death we could easily prevent. Not doing so is really a bad thing. For example, your car would get dirty to save someone, your shoelaces get lost, etc.
Which clearly would be a pain in the butt. But at the end of the day, it’s a minor sacrifice that everyone is obliged to make to save another person’s life.
From this specific case, we can make a more general claim
If you agree with Singer on this, then you have to accept the general argument as well. You may think that differences exist between giving up all our luxuries to save people from famine and the example with the child.
Well, Singer agrees. Here is how he responded to some relevant objections
- Proximity
In the example with the child, you are right next to it. It is very close to you and it happened in your everyday life. We are not near to those who die from famine. But is that a relevant difference?
For Singer, the answer is a resounding no
He argues that it used to be significant in the past, when we just couldn’t know if there was a famine. When the distance between us and those in need was just too big hundreds of years ago. You really couldn’t know back then, and that exempts you from his claim.
But, if you can read my article, then you can know now. We know about it while it's going on right now in Afghanistan and Tschad and elsewhere.
Proximity was also relevant before these organisations existed. So, proximity used to matter, but it doesn’t matter anymore.
― Theodore Roosevelt
Let’s try to block out the last example, and we will have a look at another one
Imagine a shallow pond. There is no one else there, so you have to help. But in the case of famine relieve there are always others. So you could say: “ I don’t have to help myself, other people will help, the government will help.” So, does that exempt you from your personal obligation?
Singer responds to this by saying that the presence of others is kind of relevant
In the example with the pond, it will usually lead to someone else helping the child. But imagine, you show up at a meeting and tell that story about the drowning child. Then someone asks: “But your clothes aren’t even wet?” Are you some sort of evil monster? And then you respond: No, no someone else pulled the child out. That would then get you off the hook.
But if there are other people and they don’t step in and you know that they won’t because they say they won’t do anything. Does that really excuse you, then? No.
So if you are at this meeting and you are saying the other didn’t pull the child out, and I didn’t do it either. We agreed as a group to just watch and let it happen. Well, your colleagues will clearly call you an evil heartless monster then.
But, how much do I have to donate to charity then?
So do I have to never drink coffee outside the house again? Never buy a new cool car? The latest smartphone model? So, do I have to give so much that I reach the level of those I donate to Mr. Singer?!
Well Singer says on page 231 of his paper that his principle has 2 versions
The weaker principle says: You would have to give up some luxuries but not near to the level of those you donate to.
The stronger principle says: Yes, you kinda do have to do that to live up to Mr. Singer’s (delusional) theory.
There is also an objection described on page 238, which says the entire theory is just way too demanding, and it will never work in real life. Which is a pretty standard objection to almost anything a Utilitarianist and a consequentialist thinker like Singer brings forth. I think it’s a very good objection.
Singer says that this is a very weak objection. This whole thing is demanding, but the fact that you don’t like the conclusion of the argument, doesn’t make the conclusion false. It doesn’t make Singer right either, of course.
I really like the next objection on page 239, though.
The next claim against his argument is that if all private individuals start to donate all of their own money, governments will stop giving any money. Then there won’t be enough money to help the people in need because this money from the government would be missing.
On that one, Singer basically says that you shouldn’t worry about it
There won’t be that many people who would do something as drastic as spending all of their money on charity. So if you start doing it, that won’t make enough of an impact to make governments stop donating money. Also, the government doesn’t even give that much to begin with. So impoverished yourself and your family it won’t make a difference. Ehm, OK? I would prefer not to then.
“But if I donate money to famine relief, then even more hunger will come to more people later!”
This means we would just be postponing the famine with this money, but you can’t prevent the famine from happening. Well, but if you help prevent this one, you will save exactly these people. Singer claims that it’s actually an irrelevant objection. Let’s think back to the shallow pond example. You wouldn’t just not save the kid because you know there will be another child that will surely drown in another pond somewhere else later.
I think it’s a really good objection as the pond example hinges here quite a lot actually. I can save that kid, and in case of the famine, I won’t actually prevent anything, I will just prolong the suffering for a week and then it would have the same result. Only that I am then ruined as well and struggle for survival. Got it Mr. Singer. Got it.
So, where does this all leave us?
The claim is quite radical and wild. Singer seems to believe that everyone we know. Including myself, of course, are really horrible people. This outrageous claim has caused quite the uproar in the 70s. It didn’t stand the test of time, though, and didn’t make it into our collective memory. I didn’t know about this claim until recently, either.
The paper basically claims we are all evil whenever we buy a coffee to go instead of drinking a capsule at home because we don’t donate the money we would save this way to famine relief.
Do you want to know my main problem with this entire argument? It’s hard to refute, but it’s also hard to accept that it’s so hard to refute. Maybe donating to charity isn’t optional but actually obligatory? It might be but surely not in this extreme form. It’s unrealistic in my opinion and comes straight from the ivory tower or maybe even from the loony bin?
Thanks for sticking with me here. This write was definitely different
But, I thought I would take you along on a thought experiment to give you something quite out of the ordinary to think about. I think it definitely got me to move some goal posts, and from now on, I will donate more to different causes. But that’s all there is to it. Singer’s write-up raises awareness about our privilege. Although the scope Singer suggests is arrogant and removed from reality. We have to try to do the best we can, nothing more and nothing less. As this argument is quite unreligious. I thought I would end with what the Bible has to say about giving.
“Give, and you will receive. Your gift will return to you in full — pressed down, shaken together to make room for more, running over, and poured into your lap. The amount you give will determine the amount you get back.” Luke 6:38
Be sure to leave a clap, a follow, or a comment, and please scroll to the very bottom of the page so that Medium counts it as a “read”. Thank you for your ongoing support of my writing. Thank you for being here and taking your time to read my work. It really means a lot to me.
Take care and be well.
Sources:
