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 Poverty Absolute 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 Project

Contrast 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 others

Taking their desires on as my own Golden 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 Citizen

Arbitrary 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 Argument

1. 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 Principle

Strong 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 Principle

Moderate 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 Principle

Weak 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 givingProgressive scale

If you earn less than $105,000: 1% of income As you earn closer to $105,000: 5% of income Earning millions: 33.33% of income

http://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 ResponsesAid-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.