The Life You Can Save

Dependency

Giving people food or money breeds dependency. Singer's Response He agrees, although this should not be an excuse. We must find a form of aid that promotes self sufficiency and does not destroy local markets or involve simply just giving people money.

Creating a Culture of Giving

Griffins - G (ri) F (fi) N S Getting, Face, Nudge, Self-interest Getting it into the open, putting a Face on the needy, the right kind of Nudge, challenging the norm of Self-interest

Reductio Ad Absurdum Objection

In objection to Singer's Basic Argument that says we should donate as much as possible, so long as what is sacrificed is less important than a life. P1: If the we donated all our money, developed countries would have no economy. P2: If developed countries had no economy, there would be no ability to generate wealth for its own citizens and for further donation. C: Therefore, we shouldn't donate all our money. Singer's Response We have two options: Using this radical view, even if just a few people donates, poverty would be remediated. The more people donate, the less the amount each individual must give in order to remediate poverty. Donating improves the livelihood of others, improves their economies. This creates more markets to trade with in the future.

Human Nature Objection

It's against our nature to donate or value all lives as equal. By human nature, we prioritize our families over strangers → it just simply is that we reserve money for our families rather than impoverished strangers. By human nature, we just don't donate → selfish view of human nature. Ex. children not wanting to give away candy. By human nature, we simply value our lives over those of others (especially if they are removed, foreign, or unseen by us), so we don't donate regardless of the subjective morality of it Singer's Response Unless loved ones are in absolute poverty (wherein Singer responds it's justified to prioritize them), supporting your family (even in relative poverty) can still leave money for the poor → will discuss this balance to be struck later. The is-ought problem What is (i.e. human nature) isn't necessarily what ought to be. Ex. just because we may be innately selfish doesn't mean we should be selfish. Next chapter will investigate human nature to better understand how and why we behave in certain ways and further the extent to which change is possible.

Common Objections to Giving

Moral Relativism, Right to Exercise Money, Libertarianism, Political Systems, Dependency, Future Growth, Reduction to the Absurd, Human Nature

Psychology, Evolution, and Ethics

Skeptics doubt that reason has any influence on whether act ethically. P1: Effective altruism and reasons to donate are logical. P2: When given logical arguments we donate more. C: Therefore when rationalized with, we donate more. Objections Aren't we quicker to act when emotionally involved. This is why we don't donate to those far away from us.

Why Don't We Give More?

S P D F, M Iv P Sense of Fairness, Parochialism, Diffusion of Responsibility, Futility, Money, Identifiable Victim, Psychology

Asking Too Much? - A Fair Share

A Fair Share H0) We ought to give money to meet the Millennium Development Goals P1) A fair share of money ought to be given to meet the MDG HP1) The MDG ought to be met to reduce poverty and prevent deaths P2) Not everyone gives their fair share P3) You are capable of giving beyond your share at minimal risk C) You should give more than your fair share (unless you're giving something equally or more important than the life of a child) Another Argument P1: If others do not do their fair share in the fight against poverty, people will die as a consequence. P2: Just because others do not do their fair share does not mean you are justified in letting people die as a result when you could easily save them. C: Therefore, you must do more than your fair share to ensure that people do not die when you can easily save them. Examples Thought Experiment: Drowning Child revised. Is the fact that other people are not doing their fair share a sufficient reason for allowing a child to die when you could easily rescue the child?

Asking Too Much? - Moderately Demanding View

P1: A life is worth more than stylish clothing or expensive art HP1: It is immoral to think that nice clothing or expensive art is worth more than a life P2: A moderately demanding view would allow prioritizing nice clothing and expensive art over giving to charity (which saves lives) P3: Valuing these enhancements over other people's lives is unethical C: Therefore, the moderately demanding views are immoral Example NY Museum could have used money to help people actually see paintings rather than buying expensive ones.

Your Child and the Children of Others

P1: All lives have equal value. Your child's life is no more valuable than someone else's life. P2: You need to help yourself (and your children) before you help others. All parents should meet the basic needs of their children before considering the needs of other children. P3: Your luxuries are not more important than the life of another person. C: Parents are not justified in providing luxuries for their children before the basic needs of others. Examples The Unnatural Mother: Warns others in village of natural disaster before saving her child. Zell Kravinsky: Donated kidney, wife got mad. Believes he would not let many children die so that his can live. Putting family first is excuse to hide fact we are selfish and want money. Paul Farmer: Doesn't spend much time at home with family, goes to third world to be a doctor. Believes true empathy means loving all children like your own. Abraham and Isaac

The Future Growth Objection

P1: Giving away cash will reduce future growth of capitalism. P2: Reducing future growth of capitalism will cause an economic downfall. C: We should not give away cash. Singer's Response Keep money until late in life,and then give away most of it. But people with less spectacular investment abilities might do better to give it away sooner. P1: We must give as much money as we can to the poor. P2: Investing money will increase how much money we can give in the future, without decreasing capitalistic growth. C1: Invest money in order to give more money to the poor in the future. Examples in support of Singer Warren Buffet who gave away his wealth later in life since time and investments had allowed him to give more.

The Basic Argument

P1: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. P2: 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. (thought experiments) P3: 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. C: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

Moral Relativism

P1: There is no black and white universal code for everyone. P2: Everyone must has a different view on an issue. C: Therefore, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Singer's Response P1: Moral truth is not subjective, it is objective, although we must acknowledge some grey area and case-by-case scenarios. C: No one is entitled to a belief that is not moral, for it is not an moral truth. Moral relativism seems nice until someone does something very wrong while thinking it is moral. If we reject moral relativism in some situations, we must reject it in all situations.

Money

P1: To have communal motivation is to be concerned about others. P2: To want to donate money we need to be concerned about others. P3: Money has been proven to diminish communal motivation--"As societies started to use money, the need to rely on family diminished and people were able to become more self sufficient." (58) C: Money makes us less likely to donate. Examples Just the sight of money during an experiment caused others to donate less when asked to donate and were less social and cooperative.

Libertarianism

P1: We are responsible and owe compensation, only to the people to whom we have done wrong and inflicted upon harm. P2: We have not inflicted harm upon, or done anything wrong towards people living in (absolute) poverty. C: We do not have a duty towards nor do we owe any compensation to people living in (absolute) poverty. Singer's Response We have caused harm to those living in poverty. Majority of greenhouse gases that come from Europe and America cause rising temperatures in places close to the equator affecting agriculture. The extensive use of resources like oil and minerals has been made cheap by international corporations who make deals with local corrupt politicians. Many products we use are made by modern slaves or by children, the system we have in place does not protect these people.

Right to Exercise Money

People who work for their money have the right to spend it on themselves. Singer's Response P1: Our wealth in developed nations comes from social capital - economy, safety, infrastructure, access to resources. P2: The poor do not have these things and cannot change their situation to be at liberty to spend on themselves. P3: The right to spend money on yourself and luxuries only exists because of social capital. C: It is unfair to say that it is moral to spend our money on ourselves since the poor cannot change their situation. What you have the right to do is not necessarily what you ought to do.

Political Systems

Philanthropic responses undermine real political change. For the objector, the way to combat poverty is to change the economic system (capitalism); For Singer, it is to donate to aid agencies Singer states that his mind is open to alternative methods given they are found with reason (effective altruism), but raises a question of the practicality of radical economic system change Implies that economic revolution is impractical, and so that other solutions (i.e. his of donation) are better

A Realistic Approach - Praise and Blame

Praising those who donate promotes an ethical culture of giving. Blaming those who don't donate enough does not necessarily promote giving, it just makes us guilty so that we donate to be acknowledged positively. We should praise those who donate, to encourage others, even if they could be doing more. Examples Bill and Melinda Gates, who donated billions of dollars while still living in luxury, should be praised for their contributions rather than blamed for not doing more when they could. Madonna has co-founded a charity to aid orphans and provide education for girls in Malawi and also adopted a child from Malawi. Angelina Jolie donates to Millennium Villages and has adopted multiple children. Since known celebrities are donating publicly, their fans and possibly other people would at least become aware and could donate as well.

The Sense of Fairness

So strong is our sense of fairness that, to prevent others getting more than their fair share, we are often willing to take less for ourselves. P1: It is not fair that I should be disadvantaged. P2: Those who do not donate are able to enjoy the money they kept. P3: I do not get to enjoy the money I donated. This puts me at a disadvantage. C: Therefore I should not be the only one to donate. "The most plausible answer is that moral intuitions like fairness developed because they enhanced the reproductive fitness of those who had them and the groups they belonged to." Examples In an experiment one person is given $10 and gets to decide how to split the money with the other person, if the person gives a small amount to the other person, the other person is more likely to reject the money. People would rather punish unfairness than gain money.

The Identifiable Victim

The Rule of Rescue: "we will spend far more to rescue an identifiable victim than we will to save a 'statistical life'." We use two processes to decide what to do: affective system and deliberative system. Affective System is our emotional response to generate a feeling of whether something is good or bad. It Leads to immediate action. Deliberative system is our reasoning ability which requires us to use logic and evidence. It does not lead to such immediate action. Argument P1: Our affective (emotional) system towards identifiable victims causes to act immediately. P2: Our deliberative system towards statistical data of lives is independent of our emotions and does not cause us to act immediately. C: Therefore, we are more likely to donate to a cause if we are exposed to an identifiable victim rather than a statistic

The Diffusion of Responsibility

We are much less likely to help someone if the responsibility for helping does not rest entirely on us. Examples Kitty Genovese was brutally killed, 38 people witnessed the attack and did nothing to save her. Singer's Response What difference does that make if you know that they won't, or anyway that not enough of them will for all of those 10 million children to be saved? Existentialism, you control what you do.

Parochialism

We give less to help foreigners than we give to those in our own country. Due to evolution, our concern for others is limited to our family and to people which we have cooperative relationships with. P1: Evolution shows that the parents who do not take care of their children were unlikely to pass on their genes. P2: By donating to causes that affect our kin/country we better that chances of our genes surviving. P3: By donating to countries that we cannot see our do not affect us, we do not better those chances. C: Therefore we should only donate to causes that affect us. Another argument P1: Our deliberative system takes in the news of foreign disasters, but our emotions will not be affected by misfortunes that occur to people far away. P2: Our concern is restricted to those who are our kin or apart of our social communities. C: We do not help aid foreign countries because we are not emotionally affected by their calamities since they are far away.

Futility

We say that aid to the poor is "drops in the ocean," implying that it is not worth giving, because no matter how much we do, the ocean of people in need will seem just as vast as it was before. P1: There are many and always will be people who need to be saved. P3: I cannot save everyone. C: Therefore it is futile to help. Singer's Response It is more important to focus on the amount of people we can save rather than the amount we cannot. Futility argument is just an excuse.