Famine, Affluence, and Morality, by Peter Singer

[Stazy]

When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look "well-dressed" we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable, or generous. Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called "supererogatory" - an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.

How do you defend yourself or do you agree that buying clothes to look "well-dressed" is wrong?

 

[Desi]

i take it he attacks other obsessions and interest as well? Would be funny if he wore a nicely pressed BB suit while writing this.

There is nothing to really defend. You can break it down for anything. I could eat only what I need instead of going to Red Robin for instance. Anything can be put in this situation so there is no real way to defend clothing over technology over getting manicures, etc. But I do say that the way this culture works is all about being what is deemed presentable to be noticed.

 

[chronoaug]

If i can't have my brie and fig spread whilst wearing my cashmere, life is not worth living. The poor, naked, and hungry of the world should be glad they've never experienced such luxuries as to know what it is like to be a moment without them like I must deal with

 

[JonHecht]

I comfort myself with the fact that utilitarianism is not a proper ethical theory, but rather an economic one. Then I go read Ross, Audi, and Kant and make myself smile at teleological foolishness.

 

[1969]

Simply add the threat of imprisonment or violence and you have the basis for government.

 

[globetrotter]

I think that there is a very good argument for not wasting, or not being too crazy about one's consumption. but that argument isn't to suggest taht every penny of the spare money should go for feeding the starving.

I hate to say it, but I am not sure that feeding the starving is a smart way at all to spend money. I don't give a penny today to feed the starving. I give money for scholorships for poor IDF vets, I give money to buy farm animals for 3rd world families, I give money for cleft pallet opperations. none of these are as "immidiate" as feeding starving people, but I think all have the potential of benifiting as much or more than a few hundred pounds of rice, which will just prolong the problem.

 

[edinatlanta]

Originally Posted by Desi

i take it he attacks other obsessions and interest as well? Would be funny if he wore a nicely pressed BB suit while writing this.

Yes, but he doesn't dress well.

I remember a professor telling me Singer's chair at Princeton is pretty well endowed and he takes home a pretty good paycheck, FWIW.

 

[JonHecht]

He claims to donate a large chunk of every paycheck to Africa, though.

 

[ppllzz]

when i buy clothes, some of the money goes to sweatshop laborers who are then able to buy food... if i donated all my money then those sweatshop laborers would starve since now they are out of a job

on the flipside i am donating all the money so maybe they will get it back? but the difference is in the first place they get the money and are being economically productive and in the second they are just lazing around

 

[Arethusa]

cool story bro

 

[zissou]

If we applied Singer's idea to all aspects of our lives, then we'd essentially become monks.

I try hard to not possess much unnecessary things, and I'm all for buying durable goods that won't need to be replaced anytime soon. But I'm certainly not going to give up caring about how I look simply because someone else thinks it's immoral. I do try to support and donate to local causes, which I think is one of the most effective ways of being charitable.

 

[lee_44106]

I agree with Singer.

Look at Africa. If only we in the West could give MORE, they'd be alright.

We need "We are the World" II

 

[BB1]

Peter Singer believes in a philosophy utilitarianism which he vigorously applies with all the cold heartlessness worthy of a Mr. Spock. His main idea is that our actions and policies should be optimized and coordinated so as to minimize suffering in the world. And when he speaks of suffering, he is talking about animals as well as humans. For example, when presented the scenario of a fire where you can only save an ape or a severely marsupialed child, he has said a case could be made for saving the ape and letting the human perish. Since the ape is possibly smarter than the marsupialed human, the ape will better understand his imminent death and what it means, and thus would suffer more. If one applies Singers philosophy to its logical conclusion with the full rigor as he, the conclusions are very unacceptable! Singer is a hypocrite about how one should live. Here is what he said to Reason magazine in 2000....

Singer's proclamation about income has also come back to haunt him. To all appearances, he lives on far more than $30,000 a year. Aside from the Manhattan apartment-he asked me not to give the address or describe it as a condition of granting an interview-he and his wife Renata, to whom he has been married for some three decades, have a house in Princeton. The average salary of a full professor at Princeton runs around $100,000 per year; Singer also draws income from a trust fund that his father set up and from the sales of his books. He says he gives away 20 percent of his income to famine relief organizations, but he is certainly living on a sum far beyond $30,000. When asked about this, he forthrightly admitted that he was not living up to his own standards. He insisted that he was doing far more than most and hinted that he would increase his giving when everybody else started contributing similar amounts of their incomes. There is some question as to how seriously one should take the dictates of a person who himself cannot live up to them. If he finds it impossible to follow his own rules, perhaps that means that he should reconsider his conclusions. Singer would no doubt respond that his personal failings hardly invalidate his ideas.

My father in-law talks the same way as Singer, but you point out to him how he doesn't give much to charity he arrogantly says, "I'll do it once everyone else is forced to do it!" What a humanitarian! I think he enjoys trying to prove with words how he is better and more compassionate than everyone else, but it rings hollow. Anyway, consider the source of these arguments before donating all you nice clothing to charity and wearing rags that meet your "needs".

 

[dmash]

America was built on capitalism....if someone works hard their entire life and gets lucky to make an exceptional salary, I'm all for him/her reaping the benefits.

Successful indiviudals shouldn't feel that they have a DUTY to donate money that they worked hard to earn.

You also run into the problem that quite a percentage of welfare recipients and other low income individuals are prone to drug/alcohol habits. Not a good idea to fuel a fire like that.

Regardless, this argument is a no win for either side. There's too many conflicting point of views to come to a consensus. Everything will be opinionated, there's not a REAL right or wrong.

Just my 0.02

 

[JonHecht]

BB1, as much as I disagree with Singer, your argument is an ad hominem tu quoque.