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

1. The Life You Can Save:How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty The Philosophy of Peter Singer Laura Guidry-Grimes, Fall 2011

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

3. 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_world http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats http://data.worldbank.org/topic/poverty?display=map http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/1780

5. 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 University http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html See: Interview with Peter Singer (2011)

6. Singer’s Project This is Singer’s focus • 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?

7. 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

8. 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.

9. “[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)

10. Example: Drowning Child in a Pond or

11. Example: Car on Train Tracks or

12. 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 privileged • Psychological distance is no excuse “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in Philosophy & Public Affairs 1.3 (1972)

13. The Argument What does THAT mean?? • Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. • 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. • 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. • Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong. The Life You Can Save, pgs. 15-16.

14. 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

15. The Giving Principle • Moderate Thesis: We ought to give until the sacrifice would be of comparable moral worth • These sacrifices can include other forms of suffering (besides lack of basic necessities) • The more feasible option for most people

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

17. How Much? • Video: Peter Singer on poverty • Depends on how much others are giving • Progressive 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/calculator See: The Life You Can Save in 3 minutes

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.