The Philosophy of Peter Singer

Laura Guidry-Grimes, Fall 2011

The Life You Can Save:How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty

World PovertyAbsolute vs. relative poverty

Relative: standard based on comparisons with others who are better off

Absolute/extreme: standard based on basic human needs

Can affect many areas of a person’s development, functioning, and life prospects

Singer thinks that every individual should be at the decent minimum of human existence

Photos fromhttp://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/1780http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/08/10/ove-42-of-afghan-population-live-in-extreme-poverty.html

World Poverty: Some Numbers

925 million hungry as of 2010 The poorest 40% of the world’s population has 5% of the world’s income; the richest 20% has 75% of the world’s income.

22,000 children die each day due to poverty. The rich countries have repeatedly promised to give $210 billion (0.7% of their incomes) in official development assistance, but only give $69 billion

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25/day as of 2005 (% of population) Europe & Central Asia: 3.7% Latin America & Caribbean: 8.1% South Asia: 40.3% Sub-Saharan Africa: 50.9%

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_worldhttp://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-statshttp://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty?display=maphttp://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/1780

Peter Singer Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University Act-utilitarian Has written influentially on animal ethics and abortion

Currently gives 25% of his income, has given (and pledges he will give) increasingly more over the years

Admits that he does not live up to his own ideals But also dedicates his intellectual resources and time to global justice advocacy

Photo: Denise Applewhite/Princeton Universityhttp://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.htmlSee: Interview with Peter Singer (2011)

Singer’s Project

Personal morality: What ought I do in order to be a moral person?

Vs. policy decisions: What ought we enact as part of a punishment/reward system so as to maximize the good?

This is Singer’s focus

Singer’s ProjectContrast with Rawls’ project

Rawls’ goal: derive principles of justice for the basic political structure of society NEITHER personal morality NOR policy decisions are considered in original position

Singer’s goal: determine how individuals should distribute their financial and intellectual resources so as to promote justice and fairness

Philanthropy: Supererogatory or Required?

Supererogatory: beyond what is required; class of actions that might be good or praiseworthy—but not demanded of us to be moral

Required: acts we must do to be moral; strict obligations

Singer argues that philanthropy is morally required, which makes his view importantly different from other moral philosophers’ views.

“[W]hat thinking ethically is all about”

Empathic concern for othersTaking their desires on as my ownGolden Rule as expression of common morality

Natural lottery“if you are a middle-class person in a developed country, you were fortunate to be born into social and economic circumstances that made it possible for you to live comfortably if you work hard and have the right abilities” (26)

Example: Drowning Child in a Pond

or

Example: Car on Train Tracks

or

Global CitizenArbitrary to draw line of moral concern at own borders

Our collective actions have huge implications for rest of the world

Luck that we are privilegedPsychological distance is no excuse

“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in Philosophy & Public Affairs 1.3 (1972)

The Argument1.Suffering and death from lack of food,

shelter, and medical care are bad.2.If it is in your power to prevent something

bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.

3.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.

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

The Life You Can Save, pgs. 15-16.

What does THAT

mean??

The Giving PrincipleStrong Thesis: We ought to give to the point of marginal utility“at which by giving more one would cause oneself and one's dependents as much suffering as one would prevent in Bengal”

‘marginal utility’ is understood in terms of food, shelter, and basic medical care

The most morally correct option

“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in Philosophy & Public Affairs 1.3 (1972): 234

The Giving PrincipleModerate Thesis: We ought to give until the sacrifice would be of comparable moral worthThese sacrifices can include other forms of suffering (besides lack of basic necessities)

The more feasible option for most people

The Giving PrincipleWeak Thesis: We ought to give until the sacrifice has any moral worth whatsoever.Ultimately a mischaracterization of Singer’s view

How Much?Video: Peter Singer on povertyDepends on how much others are giving

Progressive scaleIf you earn less than $105,000: 1% of income

As you earn closer to $105,000: 5% of income

Earning millions: 33.33% of incomehttp://thelifeyoucansave.com/calculatorSee: The Life You Can Save in 3 minutes

Some Criticisms and Responses

Libertarian objection: I have a right to keep my hard earned money! Justice requires us to take desert and entitlement seriously

Singer’s responses: Counterintuitive “If we accept that those who harm others must compensate them, we cannot deny that the industrialized nations owe compensation to many of the world’s poorest people” (33)

Photos from http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/image/viz_com6.html http://www.unccd.int/regional/menu.php

Some Criticisms and Responses

Aid-is-harmful objection: Can breed dependency; promotes political quietism; delaying investment can actually grow the pot

Singer’s response:Experts should determine how we can best help the poor, but we cannot ignore the problem or use this objection to justify wasting resources

Some Criticisms and Responses

Practicality objection: “Rules that would only work for angels are not the ones it is rational to support for humans” (John Arthur)

Singer’s response:Unless there is a flaw in his reasoning, you have to accept his conclusion.

John Arthur. “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case against Singer” in Vice & Virtue in Everyday Life. Eds. Christina Hoff Summers & Fred Sommers, pg. 382.