The Art of Philosophy #1: Our Responsibility?

[Razor]

OK, so the conspiracy theory threads weren't working. Let's try a philosphy series. That oughta hook the replies.

----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Singer. His writings deal mainly with the issue of Morality. One such writing, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," deals with the issue of helping those worse off than ourselves. He states his claim quite plainly, in his first rule of the writing:

If it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance we ought to do it.

Put plainly, if you can stop something bad from happening without causing something equally bad or worse happening, you are morally bound to stop that bad thing from happening. Singer puts it best in his Pond Example:

If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insginficant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.

Or,

Dead Child > Muddy Clothes

This a very strict law, and leads to the very foundations of your life. A fancy house? Why? I can use that extra money to feed starving Africans. Cars? That extra 5 boxes of candy? Why spend all that money? I can use it to feed or help others.

This principle operates off of the principle assumption that if you help a person up to a certain point, he will then begin to help himself, only to help others who worse off than himself, and so on and so forth. The movie "Pay It Forward" applied economically and socially, if you will.

I like this rule. It would have hit a snag maybe a few hundred years ago, when helping someone in Britain or South America was all of impossible. But in this day and age? Singer's argument replaces the old, antiquated logic of "They live thousands of miles away. Oh well." with brand new, "I can help. I should." logic. It also applies to those in need in our own, immediate area, so it's not taking the children in Columbia over the children in Little Rock, so to speak. It's very elegant, as well. Very few steps to the whole picture.

One argument I could forsee would be the absolutist extreme that Singer seems to imply with his rule. Give maximally. DO IT. That is a very real concern, with how extreme human beings are known to get. However, if we were to give maximally, it would break down our ability to further help those in need, making us a needy fellow instead of the giving fellow. Give within logical bounds, and Singer's logic holds sound.

So. Is it our responsibilty to help those who need it, obviously making room for moral qualms? Or is there something Singer and myself are missing? Stake your claim.

Source: Philosophical Inquiry: Classic and Contemporary Readings Pages 604-611

 

[Dave]

No. You are completely right Razor. I think you are correct in your assumption that if you can indeed help someone out, whilst in no way making yourself worse off, then by all means we must try our best and do so. I think the muddy clothes example was a bad one to use however. Mainly, because no one in their right mind would not wade in and help the child. When it comes to helping other human beings though, I think we all have a responsibility to try, to the best of out ability to help them. No matter how big or small the contribution.

In saying that, a lot of people do not help anyone except themselves. A lot of people subscribe to the opinion that they ought to be helped first before they help others. T he only problem with helping others is that people will always think that they are infinitely worse off than people in the third world for example. I used to work for a cancer charity when I was 14. I had to ask people on the street if they would donate to the cause. As it was cancer, I was never without a lot of contributions. It is a disease that people can see and it affects a lot of people, hence in becomes real to the person.

The problem with the third world is that people have not seen how bad the situation is and are unwilling to help. They think that it’s not affecting them so why should they help? A lot of people think this way but not when it comes to something that could actually kill them. Cancer is a good example of this. People are much more likely to donate to and help a cause that is more likely to help them in some way. Of course, this is a very cynical view and it doesn’t place a lot of faith in the nature of the human being but hey! People ultimately only have one thing on their minds at all time and that is helping themselves.

I think that countries like the UK and the USA do have a moral obligation to help the countries who are less fortunate than us. I mean, I would think differently if some of the problems they face were their own problems. However, a lot of the problems these countries have, have been forced on them and the people are not strong enough or do not have the means to remedy them themselves.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I have one problem this theory. It often times forces one to weigh how moral it is help one person or group versus another. It is hard to determine what causes moral harm to you, and if that amount of moral harm is enough to warrant inaction. If I can save someone's life, but lose my arm should I do it? I would say that according to Singer, the answer is yes, however, what does his define as moral harm? Is it moral harm to injure yourself at all in the aid of another? With one arm I would have a harder time feeding my family, I would get less enjoyment out of my life. So I would argue that letting someone die to save my arm is a moral act. That doesn't sound like it, and according to Singer, it may not be, but to me, losing an arm would be quite injurious to my life, therefore, worth inaction. In your example of muddy clothes for a child's life, Singer is easily correct, however, when the amount of harm gets greater, Singer's theory gets tested.

On a national level, how do we determine moral harm? The US sends around $400 billion to Africa every year. This is hardly something we call immoral. However, there are homeless, sick, addicted, and destitude people in America. True, we already help them, however, half a trillion dollars would go a long way in drug rehabilitation, job programs, and expansion of shelters for our homeless. The act of aiding our own would certainly be moral, but now we have to weigh which act is more moral.

A simple cost/benefit analysis would dictate that helping our own is more moral than helping others. Less homeless means more workers, which benefits everyone by enlarging the tax pool. Would it now be considered immoral to send the money to Africa? Hardly, but what would Singer say? I would imagine that he would say the act of sending money to Africa, money that was never intended to fight the problem at home, is not morally injurious, in that we are not TAKING the money from our domestic interests. I wonder, however, that if we have the money, and use it to save African lives instead of American lives, if that is more moral. And, even if the act is more moral, is it still not morally injurious to not spend the money at home? Conversely, is it morally injurious to keep the money at home instead of fighting AIDS in Africa, or malaria, or extending life expectancy.

Do you know how Singer would answer these questions?

 

[HBK-aholic]

I don't think it's our responsibility to help people less fortunate than ourselves. That's not to say I wouldn't, or other people shouldn't, but responsibility implies we have to do it or we're a bad person, which is completely insane. Sure, you can help if you like, but we shouldn't have to. It's not like a job.

 

[Razor]

It is hard to determine what causes moral harm to you, and if that amount of moral harm is enough to warrant inaction. If I can save someone's life, but lose my arm should I do it? I would say that according to Singer, the answer is yes, however, what does his define as moral harm? Is it moral harm to injure yourself at all in the aid of another? With one arm I would have a harder time feeding my family, I would get less enjoyment out of my life. So I would argue that letting someone die to save my arm is a moral act. That doesn't sound like it, and according to Singer, it may not be, but to me, losing an arm would be quite injurious to my life, therefore, worth inaction. In your example of muddy clothes for a child's life, Singer is easily correct, however, when the amount of harm gets greater, Singer's theory gets tested.

Ah, and so herein lies the problem. I myself was confronted with this problem when I read Singer's writings. My arm is needed to work and feed my family. How am I to be expected to sacrifice it to save someone else? According to Singer's most strict rule, you should. However, Singer allows for the gray area with a second, qualified principle:

"As I have already said, I need to assert it only in its qualified form: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it."

Singer readily understands that not everyone will sacrifice the same amount to stop a very bad thing from happening. Despite Singer's belief that one probably should, given the varying ways one can make a living in today's age, give up the arm to save the child; he does offer a qualified principle for those who do not believe as such. With this principle he is not sacrificing the validity of his original principle, he is merely allowing it to stand under the varied weight of different moral dilemmas. Singer is, essentially, making a principle that not only the moral absolutists can follow.

So no, you don't have to give up your arm, under the second principle. However, if you were to follow the first principle, you very well may have to. It depends on if you're an absolutist or a utilitarian.

On a national level, how do we determine moral harm? The US sends around $400 billion to Africa every year. This is hardly something we call immoral. However, there are homeless, sick, addicted, and destitude people in America. True, we already help them, however, half a trillion dollars would go a long way in drug rehabilitation, job programs, and expansion of shelters for our homeless. The act of aiding our own would certainly be moral, but now we have to weigh which act is more moral.

Singer does not identify which problem is more immediate, or as I stated it:

it's not taking the children in Columbia over the children in Little Rock, so to speak.

Singer merely states that we should prioritize helping others above silly propositions. In the beginnings of his writings, Singer brings up the British expenditure of £275,000,000 for supersonic jet transport over £14,750,000 for Bengal refugee relief. Also, he laments the Australian aid to the region, when it equals about 1/12th of the amount spent on Sydney's new opera house. (He wrote this paper in 1972, when the Bengali crisis and what not were relevant.)

According to Singer, we shouldn't spend millions upon millions of dollars for a new opera house when we send maybe a tenth of that to help those who are in true need. Who we choose to spend that money on is a different problem on which he does not elaborate.

A simple cost/benefit analysis would dictate that helping our own is more moral than helping others. Less homeless means more workers, which benefits everyone by enlarging the tax pool. Would it now be considered immoral to send the money to Africa? Hardly, but what would Singer say? I would imagine that he would say the act of sending money to Africa, money that was never intended to fight the problem at home, is not morally injurious, in that we are not TAKING the money from our domestic interests. I wonder, however, that if we have the money, and use it to save African lives instead of American lives, if that is more moral. And, even if the act is more moral, is it still not morally injurious to not spend the money at home? Conversely, is it morally injurious to keep the money at home instead of fighting AIDS in Africa, or malaria, or extending life expectancy.

As Singer's principle stands, you yourself would have to make that call. Is the deaths of millions morally less significant than extending the life of the generic Western citizen ten years? Curing AIDS, which is a far reaching epidemic? Singer does not begin to tackle these moral issues, because he is not arguing the issues themselves, merely the principle that should encourage us to spend money to help people instead of increasing our own material wealth.

Once again, you have to answer the moral questions yourself. Singer merely states the principle that he believes we should live by. He does not begin to offer an answer to the moral question for every possible issue. Though he does venture to say you should save the child even if you get your clothes dirty, or you should increase spending on those in need instead of building a mutil-billion dollar opera house, when you already have one in place.

 

[Razor]

I don't think it's our responsibility to help people less fortunate than ourselves. That's not to say I wouldn't, or other people shouldn't, but responsibility implies we have to do it or we're a bad person, which is completely insane. Sure, you can help if you like, but we shouldn't have to. It's not like a job.

I'll leave this to Singer:

"Nor is it the kind of act that 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."

Morally speaking, you SHOULD help those in need. Doesn't matter if you want to or not. It IS your responsibility, in this day and age of global community, to help those you can. Spending that extra money on clothes so that you can be seen as "well-dressed" simply for the ability to be seen as "well-dressed" is morally reprehensible. There is no way to argue that spending extra money on a new sports car is morally equivalent, superior, or neutral in comparison to feeding a starving child/adult.

Sadly, our society seems to think that it is fine to spend millions on a luxury yacht instead of sending those millions to feed the starving in Africa or clothing the homeless in New York City. Not only that, but to give is an act that should be glorified, because the giver "didn't have to do it." On the contrary, morally speaking, he should have.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Morally speaking, you SHOULD help those in need. Doesn't matter if you want to or not. It IS your responsibility, in this day and age of global community, to help those you can. Spending that extra money on clothes so that you can be seen as "well-dressed" simply for the ability to be seen as "well-dressed" is morally reprehensible. There is no way to argue that spending extra money on a new sports car is morally equivalent, superior, or neutral in comparison to feeding a starving child/adult.

And who decides what a moral responsibility is? Who decides what's morally reprehensible? The words mean different things to different people, why is what you think automatically correct?

Sadly, our society seems to think that it is fine to spend millions on a luxury yacht instead of sending those millions to feed the starving in Africa or clothing the homeless in New York City. Not only that, but to give is an act that should be glorified, because the giver "didn't have to do it." On the contrary, morally speaking, he should have. As Singer put it:

"Nor is it the kind of act that 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."

If I've earned millions of pounds I'll spend it on a luxury yacht if I want one. I'll spend it on travelling the world and buying nice clothes if I want. Feeding starving people is NOT a responsibility of mine. The only people I'm responsible for feeding would be my children.

 

[Razor]

And who decides what a moral responsibility is? Who decides what's morally reprehensible? The words mean different things to different people, why is what you think automatically correct?

So. Spending millions on a yacht when you could spend the money feeding the starving in your own town is morally acceptable? By what logic?

If I've earned millions of pounds I'll spend it on a luxury yacht if I want one. I'll spend it on travelling the world and buying nice clothes if I want. Feeding starving people is NOT a responsibility of mine. The only people I'm responsible for feeding would be my children.

Oh, it IS your responsibility as a member of the global community. The idea of helping others is not one of "Meh, if she does it then fine." It's a question of black and white.

The question "Should I work to cure AIDS or spend that money and time helping feed those in Ethiopia" is a fine moral question that requires debate and has no real answer. However, the question "Is it morally fine for me to spend money on a luxury sports car I don't need when I can spend it helping those on my very block who need food?" is not a question of gray area. The answer is clear. The morally correct answer is to feed that person. To say otherwise is a bankruptcy of morals.

 

[HBK-aholic]

So. Spending millions on a yacht when you could spend the money feeding the starving in your own town is morally acceptable? By what logic?




Oh, it IS your responsibility as a member of the global community. The idea of helping others is not one of "Meh, if she does it then fine." It's a question of black and white.

The question "Should I work to cure AIDS or spend that money and time helping feed those in Ethiopia" is a fine moral question that requires debate and has no real answer. However, the question "Is it morally fine for me to spend money on a luxury sports car I don't need when I can spend it helping those on my very block who need food?" is not a question of gray area. The answer is clear. The morally correct answer is to feed that person. To say otherwise is a bankruptcy of morals.

Again I ask, what makes your views superior to someone who doesn't feel they need to give their money to other people. I don't give to charity, does that make me a horrible person now? YOU are deciding it's morally reprehensible to spend money on something flash you want, but I certainly don't feel the same.

I am NOT at a responsibility to feed anyone except my own family, it's that simple. How you're even arguing otherwise is beyond me.

 

[Loveless]

Ok, I'll take up this challenge to argue on behalf of The League of Selfish Bastards.

"If it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance we ought to do it."

Ok firstly "Moral Importance" is a nonsense as there's no such thing as wrong or right, only perceived acceptable behaviour, the basis of which is mutual reciprocation or "I won't slap you in the face, so you won't slap me in the face". I could disregard his entire argument on that fact but I'll carry on.

The next way to look at this is by comparable sacrifice/reward. If I make this huge sacrifice of giving away all the money I could use to buy I my house, how much good would it actually do? As one person, am not responsible or obligated for more than my worth. The sacrifice of the individual is relative how much they can actually do. Should I make a massive and permanent sacrifice for the small benefit of 100 or so people? I say no, the responsibility of the powerless individual is minuscule when compared to governments.

If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignficant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.

What a stupid argument this is. It's incomparable in sacrifice and responsibility. The sacrifice is so minor as to be worthless and the responsibility can't be diffused to someone better placed to help.

This principle operates off of the principle assumption that if you help a person up to a certain point, he will then begin to help himself, only to help others who worse off than himself, and so on and so forth.

Assumptions have no place in philosophy. The perception is not that it begins a cycle of further helping, otherwise everyone would be better off.

However, if we were to give maximally, it would break down our ability to further help those in need, making us a needy fellow instead of the giving fellow. Give within logical bounds, and Singer's logic holds sound.

This seems like a contradiction of his whole idea. If his philosophy is "If you can help, you should help" saying "Hey I'll help a little bit" completely undermines the entire idea.
If everyone gives everything they have, what you end up with is simply a switching of positions of power. You can't create "good" by sacrificing "good", you can only pass it around and in the case of starving African children, you're passing it into a system that's not self-sufficient and would waste that rebalancing. Financially look at it from a mathematics view

Us +5
Them -5

Balance that out, we suffer, they gain but it's still the same totalled up. In the end the better system would regain it's position of power, they'd go downhill and it'd all be for nothing. Of course that's an assumption though
Life on the whole is a meritocracy, the strong survive and the rest don't. If you're fucked then you've either screwed up or the people in charge of you have, in which case you need to do something about it instead of waiting for help. Self-responsibility eh? It's a bitch

 

[FromTheSouth]

This argument moves beyond self-help and personal responsibility. Singer is arguing that giving of yourself is a moral obligation when what you give helps someone more than it hurts you. That it pretty simple. Agree or disagree, the premise exists all over society, from welfare, to unemployment, to the tax code.

The questions here are of extent. Do I think someone who makes millions of dollars a year should have to give half his salary to the government? Hell no. That man earned that money, and while he does have a responsibility to help fund the society that allowed him to earn that much, he doesn't have a responsibility to pay for the whole system. The graduated tax code is an acceptable method for funding a society, however, is it morally injurious for someone to give up half their money? I would say yes. You have a moral obligation to provide for your family, and the more money you give, the less you can protect your own.

No morals are absolute. I agree with Becca on this. And you do not have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. I would hope that if you had millions of dollars, you would feel it moral to give some to those who need it, but, by no means should you be forced to.

I think Singer's ideals work better for individuals than they do for collectives, such as nations. When you are responsible for millions of people, there is always moral injury by giving away money and resources that could be used at home. But as members of a global community, morally you should provide for everyone. With today's leaders trying to move further into the global community, it seems that, according to Singer, it would be more moral to give away the money. The problem is that we move towards equality, not by bringing others up, but by bringing us down to everyone else's level. With one choice, you bring parody to the world's communities, which is moral on a world wide scale, but immoral on a national scale. The other choice provides for more separation between the strong and weak nations, which is moral on a national scale, and immoral on a global scale.

 

[Razor]

Again I ask, what makes your views superior to someone who doesn't feel they need to give their money to other people. I don't give to charity, does that make me a horrible person now? YOU are deciding it's morally reprehensible to spend money on something flash you want, but I certainly don't feel the same.

I am NOT at a responsibility to feed anyone except my own family, it's that simple. How you're even arguing otherwise is beyond me.

Again I ask, by what moral reasoning do you argue that spending millions on a yacht is morally OK, when you can spend that money on helping those who are starving, or naked? Morally speaking, it is reprehensible.

Now, just because it is morally reprehensible, it doesn't mean you HAVE to. If you followed everyone of your moral inclinations, it would be. I find it morally reprehensible to lie, but I do it anyway. Singer merely argues that you morally ought to, he doesn't make the argument that everyone will or should be made to. There's an element of choice to the issue, which Singer acknowledges with his second principle.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Again I ask, by what moral reasoning do you argue that spending millions on a yacht is morally OK, when you can spend that money on helping those who are starving, or naked? Morally speaking, it is reprehensible.

Now, just because it is morally reprehensible, it doesn't mean you HAVE to. If you followed everyone of your moral inclinations, it would be. I find it morally reprehensible to lie, but I do it anyway. Singer merely argues that you morally ought to, he doesn't make the argument that everyone will or should be made to. There's an element of choice to the issue, which Singer acknowledges with his second principle.

Morally speaking? By whose morals? Your own? I find nothing wrong with spending millions on something you want, because it's YOUR money. I don't want to spend that money on other people. Oh noes, I'm a horrible person, please shoot me.

What's right and wrong change all the time. It used to be wrong, as well as a medical condition, to be homosexual. It used to be right for a husband to rape his wife. Just because YOU find this morally right NOW, doesn't mean everyone does, and doesn't mean it'll stay that way.

 

[Razor]

The questions here are of extent. Do I think someone who makes millions of dollars a year should have to give half his salary to the government? Hell no. That man earned that money, and while he does have a responsibility to help fund the society that allowed him to earn that much, he doesn't have a responsibility to pay for the whole system.

Singer acknowledges this in his writings, when he answers the argument "But if we all give maximally, then the help given will override need, and the sacrifices given will exceed the morally bad happening." Singer answers that if everyone is giving, then the argument holds. If you know for certain that everyone is giving to the system then you can justify giving less.

The tax code is an example of this. A man can argue that since he knows everyone is giving, he doesn't have to give maximally. Or in this case, give half of his paycheck to the government. He is under the assumption that everyone is giving, so if he pays his taxes the government should be able to run. And in a perfect world, that is just the case.

The graduated tax code is an acceptable method for funding a society, however, is it morally injurious for someone to give up half their money? I would say yes. You have a moral obligation to provide for your family, and the more money you give, the less you can protect your own.

Well, if you give so much that you can no longer help, then you've defeated the purpose of the principle. According to the principle, you should give right up to the point where you:

A) Can no longer give, finding yourself counted amongst those in need of help.

B) Find that the place you find yourself economically or materially morally outweighs helping those who would normally receive your money.

If you find your new boat more morally significant than feeding that man down the street, then so be it. The principle holds for you. However, the principle finds itself to be adjustable to others. You could never convince me that a new boat is more morally significant than feeding a poor man, as an example.

No morals are absolute. I agree with Becca on this. And you do not have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. I would hope that if you had millions of dollars, you would feel it moral to give some to those who need it, but, by no means should you be forced to.

Well, I never argued you should be forced to. I was arguing more along the lines of morals then forcing someone to give. No law will ever be made that FORCES you to pay more than what you give in taxes.

But yes, no morals are absolute. Which makes Singer's principle fit so well. It has the flexibility to fit every moral situation, and every set of morals.

I think Singer's ideals work better for individuals than they do for collectives, such as nations. When you are responsible for millions of people, there is always moral injury by giving away money and resources that could be used at home.

I see your point that helping those in your own nation would seem more important than helping those abroad. However, Singer's main argument is that spending millions on a new opera house should take a backseat to helping anyone, including those abroad and/or those domestically.

But as members of a global community, morally you should provide for everyone. With today's leaders trying to move further into the global community, it seems that, according to Singer, it would be more moral to give away the money. The problem is that we move towards equality, not by bringing others up, but by bringing us down to everyone else's level. With one choice, you bring parody to the world's communities, which is moral on a world wide scale, but immoral on a national scale. The other choice provides for more separation between the strong and weak nations, which is moral on a national scale, and immoral on a global scale.

This only holds if the nations give maximally, in accordance to the first Singer principle. However, according to Singer's second, the moral qualm of "If I give to those in Ethopia, I still have to contend with mass starving at home" is enough to break giving to the poor abroad.

If you strike a balance between giving to Ethiopia and giving to your own citizens, then Singer's principle holds.

 

[Razor]

Morally speaking? By whose morals? Your own? I find nothing wrong with spending millions on something you want, because it's YOUR money. I don't want to spend that money on other people. Oh noes, I'm a horrible person, please shoot me.

Well, it is a basic moral principle that helping others is better than wasting millions on a boat. At least, I figured that every world religion wouldn't argue it if it wasn't.

I never once argued that you should be forced to pay that money on another thing, like a starving person, however. So no, you won't be getting shot.

What's right and wrong change all the time. It used to be wrong, as well as a medical condition, to be homosexual. It used to be right for a husband to rape his wife. Just because YOU find this morally right NOW, doesn't mean everyone does, and doesn't mean it'll stay that way.

Well, no. It doesn't. Which makes Singer's principle a truly fine principle. It fits all kinds of moral rules and situations.

The mass majority of people finding it OK to spend millions on vanity items instead of helping his fellow human being doesn't mean that that value is morally acceptable. It just means a lot of people have shaky morals. It's like if someone said to a college's J-Board, "I only cheated because my entire class was cheating." That doesn't mean what you're doing is right, it just means there is a lot of wrong people.

However, I accept that different people will find different things morally acceptable. Some people find homosexuality moral reprehensible, I find it morally neutral. Some people find stealing to keep yourself and your family fed when you have no other recourse is morally acceptable, and I agree.

Feel free to spend that money on a boat and find it morally acceptable. But accept that others will find it morally wrong. Just as a homosexual will have to accept that fact. Just as I will have to accept that people will think my future work in Stem Cell research is morally reprehensible. I have to accept that.

 

[Razor]

Ok firstly "Moral Importance" is a nonsense as there's no such thing as wrong or right, only perceived acceptable behaviour, the basis of which is mutual reciprocation or "I won't slap you in the face, so you won't slap me in the face". I could disregard his entire argument on that fact but I'll carry on.

No. To everyone there is a sense of right or wrong. The principle doesn't aim to define that for you; it just states that if you find something morally wrong, and you can stop that via a way that is not equally morally wrong, then you should do it. That applies to everyone.

The next way to look at this is by comparable sacrifice/reward. If I make this huge sacrifice of giving away all the money I could use to buy I my house, how much good would it actually do? As one person, am not responsible or obligated for more than my worth. The sacrifice of the individual is relative how much they can actually do. Should I make a massive and permanent sacrifice for the small benefit of 100 or so people? I say no, the responsibility of the powerless individual is minuscule when compared to governments.

If you find the sacrifice of your house money to outweigh the perceived moral good of helping others, then by all means. Refuse to do so. This principle does not state what you should find morally acceptable or morally wrong.

If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignficant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.

What a stupid argument this is. It's incomparable in sacrifice and responsibility. The sacrifice is so minor as to be worthless and the responsibility can't be diffused to someone better placed to help.

It's the most basic application of Singer's principle. It's not stupid at all. It is the simplest way to communicate Singer's principle in action, and it achieves its goal.

This principle operates off of the principle assumption that if you help a person up to a certain point, he will then begin to help himself, only to help others who worse off than himself, and so on and so forth.

Assumptions have no place in philosophy.

Assumptions are everywhere in philosophy. There are numerous dualist theories that assume the presence of a God. There are numerous theories that assume the basic truth that "Good is something that makes you better for having it, Bad is something that makes you worse for having it, and Neutral is something that does neither."

The perception is not that it begins a cycle of further helping, otherwise everyone would be better off.

..Which is the entire point of the principle. I fail to see how this sentence goes against the Singer principle.

However, if we were to give maximally, it would break down our ability to further help those in need, making us a needy fellow instead of the giving fellow. Give within logical bounds, and Singer's logic holds sound.

This seems like a contradiction of his whole idea. If his philosophy is "If you can help, you should help" saying "Hey I'll help a little bit" completely undermines the entire idea.

Not at all. If you give so much that you are now one that needs to be given to, then you've defeated the entire purpose of the principle. If you give so much that you can no longer give, then that makes no sense at all. The entire principle is so that you CAN give. If you can't, then the principle no longer applies.

If everyone gives everything they have, what you end up with is simply a switching of positions of power. You can't create "good" by sacrificing "good", you can only pass it around and in the case of starving African children, you're passing it into a system that's not self-sufficient and would waste that rebalancing.

Which is why you don't give maximally.

Financially look at it from a mathematics view

Us +5
Them -5

Balance that out, we suffer, they gain but it's still the same totalled up. In the end the better system would regain it's position of power, they'd go downhill and it'd all be for nothing. Of course that's an assumption though

You're not to give yourself into a position where you are morally worse off. If you find that to be when you can't afford a luxury sports car, then so be it. If you find that to be when you can't afford the clothes on your back, then so be it. You act as though the principle teaches we should give maximally. Singer argues no such thing (through his principle).

Life on the whole is a meritocracy, the strong survive and the rest don't.

"The strong survive and the rest don't" is what Darwin would argue of the world a million years ago, and the world as it is for the animals in this day in age. We are animals, sure. But we have transcended the simplest principles of Natural Selection, whether or not that is a good thing. We can keep those with disabilities alive when, according to Natural Selection, they should die. We have gotten to a point in society where we can override Natural Selection and allow the weaker genes to survive and cultivate themselves in our society.

Basically, that argument is outdated.

If you're fucked then you've either screwed up or the people in charge of you have, in which case you need to do something about it instead of waiting for help. Self-responsibility eh? It's a bitch

Oh, then the starving should starve. I wouldn't go about those morals, but you know how it goes. I care.

Singer's principle does not argue any sort of moral principles. He does, in his writing, make his own morals clear; such as with the Pond Example. However, when dealing strictly with his principle, no set of morals are set in stone.

It moves liquidly throughout the moral rules set up by all different kinds of people, and arrives at the same conclusion. If you find it morally wrong that something is happening, and can stop it without giving something up of morally equal (or in the second rule,anything even remotely morally significant) significance, then you should. Which is basically saying "If you find it morally wrong, you should fix it." That doesn't sound strange or farfetched at all.

 

[Murfish]

So. Spending millions on a yacht when you could spend the money feeding the starving in your own town is morally acceptable? By what logic?

You're pumping large sums of cash into the economy. If other rich people do the same, the economy gets better due to the cash flowing through everyone's hands. Spending increases when the lower classes start earning money again. The government gets revenue from taxes. The government then helps the starving in a large, organized manner.

 

[FromTheSouth]

So, is Murfish saying that trickle down economics are the most moral solution?

Is it moral to make it easier on those at the top because they then can employ those at the bottom? It is beneficial in that those at the bottom get employed and that the pool of revenue gets larger.

This is Milton Friedman/Ronald Reagan/The Bushes personified. This system has been defined as immoral in that creates almost a caste system. I feel however, that the more regulation and higher taxes you place on business, the more people get laid off, creating more hungry, homeless, and destitude.

Singer doesn't delineate between short term beneficence and long term, and how time differentiates between moral benefits.

 

[Murfish]

So, is Murfish saying that trickle down economics are the most moral solution?

Is it moral to make it easier on those at the top because they then can employ those at the bottom? It is beneficial in that those at the bottom get employed and that the pool of revenue gets larger.

I tend to agree with the trickle down idea. The way I responded with helped a lot more people than the way originally suggested. I think morals have to be placed in perspective with the big picture.

 

[Razor]

You're pumping large sums of cash into the economy. If other rich people do the same, the economy gets better due to the cash flowing through everyone's hands. Spending increases when the lower classes start earning money again. The government gets revenue from taxes. The government then helps the starving in a large, organized manner.

That works if the money you spend on the yacht somehow helps people more than if you were to directly give the poor people the money. Which, according to the perfect world of the Trickle-Down theory, it does.

If you can argue more people are helped via any one of the choices, then the moral question changes.

 

[Razor]

So, is Murfish saying that trickle down economics are the most moral solution?

Is it moral to make it easier on those at the top because they then can employ those at the bottom? It is beneficial in that those at the bottom get employed and that the pool of revenue gets larger.

This is Milton Friedman/Ronald Reagan/The Bushes personified. This system has been defined as immoral in that creates almost a caste system. I feel however, that the more regulation and higher taxes you place on business, the more people get laid off, creating more hungry, homeless, and destitude.

Singer doesn't delineate between short term beneficence and long term, and how time differentiates between moral benefits.

I, however, would argue that the trickle-down theory doesn't work at all. All those tax cuts under the stimulus package that didn't equal out to more jobs being created, or the fact that years of trickle-down theory hasn't helped us avoid the current economic disaster would tend to agree with me.

If the idea of cutting taxes and regulations on the top echelons doesn't equal out to more jobs, then the theory and Singer's principle fails. Unless, of course, you believe people without jobs is of moral equivalence to rich people having more money. Then Singer's principle would hold, for you. If, however, the theory creates more jobs then Singer's principle is held and the idea of cutting taxes for the rich holds. It is all rooted in the actual happenings, not what will theoretically happen.

 

[Loveless]

All this talk of morality is funny because essentially, it's nothing but a concept. The world could wake up tomorrow and decide that mandatory euthanasia for the over 70's, in which case, what would seem immoral today, becomes moral tomorrow. Putting morality aside for a moment, why should my hard work benefit someone else more than me? If being productive offers no reward, why bother being productive and working in the first place?
Conversely, if you're being provided for, why bother being productive and trying to be self-sufficient?
If you look at the communist model (Marx's idea, not the bastardised Soviet Russia or China model) then you have a system of self-sufficiency where everyone provides and is provided for but even then, that doesn't believe in charity outside of the circle.
Any system which is perceived as inherently imbalanced will be seen as immoral as we live in a society that trumps fairness above everything else. Not that anyone would call giving to charity immoral but if you flip that on it's head, is it moral to beg or ask for money. And isn't that what charity is in the end? If you didn't know something was wrong, you wouldn't give in the first place. It's not like people suddenly said "Hey, I'm going to give away my money for no reason" Charity is nothing more than answering a constant request, mainly due to some sort of perceived guilt about being privileged. You can blame that church for that. What's the Nietzsche quote

*Loveless goes to find Human All Too Human *

"Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart, but now has to burden the heart first, in order to lighten it afterwards"

I think he put it better somewhere else in the book, talking about how morality turns good men into sinners, just so it can turn them back. There is another nice little quote on the following page

"There is not enough love and kindness in the world to permit us to give any of it away to imaginary beings"

If you want to know how much your morality is worth, tally up how much you give to charity a month. Don't feel bad if it's nothing, you offer more to those around you than you ever could to some anonymous stranger.

 

[Razor]

All this talk of morality is funny because essentially, it's nothing but a concept. The world could wake up tomorrow and decide that mandatory euthanasia for the over 70's, in which case, what would seem immoral today, becomes moral tomorrow.

Morality is not, nor should it be, subject to the greater majority. Sure, societal morals deem social stigmas and the like, but if you can get through a few bad stares then you're golden. A lot of people believing the same evil is good doesn't make that evil good. It just means a lot of people are evil.

Putting morality aside for a moment, why should my hard work benefit someone else more than me? If being productive offers no reward, why bother being productive and working in the first place?

Because you're a member of a global community. Your hard work DOES benefit you, by making a better community overall. If you can help others without inconviencing yourself, I fail to see how that is a moral qualm.

Of course, it's really rather subjective. I'm arguing from a firm founding in "not being irrational."

Conversely, if you're being provided for, why bother being productive and trying to be self-sufficient?

You seem to believe those who are on the Dole or get government cheese are lazy people who never wanna get up and work. I beg to differ. Most poor people have simply fallen on rough times. My mom, for instance, lost her TWO jobs she was working when I was young. She was on Welfare for a year, just long enough for her to get another job. She immediately got off of Unemployment and we shuffled through years more of no money and barely keeping the utilities on. The starving in Ethopia are the victims of a corrupt government that keeps all of its money. The starving in North Korea are of the same chord.

If you look at the communist model (Marx's idea, not the bastardised Soviet Russia or China model) then you have a system of self-sufficiency where everyone provides and is provided for but even then, that doesn't believe in charity outside of the circle.

Well. There's a reason why Marxist Communism never took afloat as a state government. It's failed logic.

Any system which is perceived as inherently imbalanced will be seen as immoral as we live in a society that trumps fairness above everything else. Not that anyone would call giving to charity immoral but if you flip that on it's head, is it moral to beg or ask for money.

If begging for money is the only way you can feed your family, I would believe so. Let's apply Singer's Principle.

Very Bad Thing: Starving family

Thing you give up: Confidence, self-esteem

Do you find your self-esteem morally superior to feeding your family? If you do, then no begging. If you don't, then beg away.

Of course, that is assuming that the person who gives you money aren't giving you so much they're in the poor house. Then the principle has a different question put forth.

And isn't that what charity is in the end? If you didn't know something was wrong, you wouldn't give in the first place. It's not like people suddenly said "Hey, I'm going to give away my money for no reason" Charity is nothing more than answering a constant request, mainly due to some sort of perceived guilt about being privileged.

Well. I have no guilt that I have more money than the Ethiopians. I just want them to eat. I don't like going to bed hungry, I've done it too many times before. So if I could send money to make sure even a few more could eat, then why not?

You can blame that church for that.

Catholic guilt, Jewish guilt, the like. Aren't comedians always talking about those?

"Christianity came into existence in order to lighten the heart, but now has to burden the heart first, in order to lighten it afterwards"

"There is not enough love and kindness in the world to permit us to give any of it away to imaginary beings"

If you want to find quotes that attack Christianity, Nietzche is your man. However, I wouldn't say he's attacking morality with these quotes. He's attacking Christianity. Which is an entirely different thing.

If you want to know how much your morality is worth, tally up how much you give to charity a month.

Well..I never said that. I just said that I believe morally, if you can help those in need without making yourself one of those in need, you should. That's the stricter of Singer's principles, but you know how it is. Morals are shaky.

Morals are measured individually, by each man himself. More uniformly though, I would measure how moral a man is by if he can sleep at night. That's a much more efficient model.

Don't feel bad if it's nothing, you offer more to those around you than you ever could to some anonymous stranger.

Oh come on, you know that last quote about the "imaginary being" was a stab at God, not giving to those starving on your road.

If you're arguing the "help those around you instead of the ones far away" point, then understand that the same morals about helping them apply. That is, if you care about them. If you don't, then so be it.

 

[Tenta]

All this talk of morality is funny because essentially, it's nothing but a concept.

This, times a thousand. Loveless, don't forget that as soon as I can, I will rep you, sir. But anyway, I'd agree wholeheartedly with this idea. The idea of "moral responsibility" is something that comes up with our rearing. I have an extremely naturalistic view on the way in which we are educated, and a good portion of our raising is heavily dependant on our raising. Different people are raised with a different set of "rules", and environment plays a huge chunk in how we are rooted into our beliefs.

Not to be negligent to any other area of the world, but to the best of my understanding, Razor, you have a degree from Arkansas, no? I would go to insinuate that you come from the home of a southern family, and thus, have a different set of standards. I myself have lived fifteen years of my life in the south, and find that's a different culture, with a completely different set of rules, as compared to the other parts of the country, and indeed the world.

Also, one has to consider that the scale for morality is one that is constantly shifting, and that is very open for interpretation. Consider what I like to call the "Jean Veljean" complex. A man steals a loaf of bread, as he is a beggar, and must feed his family:

Is the man a moral man for having attempted to feed his family at all costs, or is he an immoral man for having broken the law, and stealing is a commandment, passed down from Biblical time, and placed in modern societies, because it is an understood rule?

You will get a split answer on this, as others will seemingly have a different scale of morality. So while your idea is extremely ideal, one has to consider, Razor, that it is perhaps too ideal, and that the concept of morality is one that is constantly in flux, perhaps never to be completely accepted by any one term.

 

[Razor]

This, times a thousand. Loveless, don't forget that as soon as I can, I will rep you, sir. But anyway, I'd agree wholeheartedly with this idea. The idea of "moral responsibility" is something that comes up with our rearing. I have an extremely naturalistic view on the way in which we are educated, and a good portion of our raising is heavily dependant on our raising. Different people are raised with a different set of "rules", and environment plays a huge chunk in how we are rooted into our beliefs.

Well, yes. What I was arguing with Becca was more along the lines of a moral quandary between her and myself. In no way does it affect Singer's Principle. Singer's Principle applies to all moral values.

I would hope that no matter how you were raised, you wouldn't want people to starve. Of course, you might not care at all. Oh well, not my morals. If you can sleep at night, then by all means.

Not to be negligent to any other area of the world, but to the best of my understanding, Razor, you have a degree from Arkansas, no?

Eh, I'm getting a degree from the University of Arkansas. I'm only 19, silly. But close enough.

I would go to insinuate that you come from the home of a southern family, and thus, have a different set of standards. I myself have lived fifteen years of my life in the south, and find that's a different culture, with a completely different set of rules, as compared to the other parts of the country, and indeed the world.

Well, I fully accept that everyone has different morals. Though, really, how could anyone look at a starving person and say "Meh. Not my problem." How? and how could they back it using basic right and wrong arguments?

Also, one has to consider that the scale for morality is one that is constantly shifting, and that is very open for interpretation. Consider what I like to call the "Jean Veljean" complex. A man steals a loaf of bread, as he is a beggar, and must feed his family:

Is the man a moral man for having attempted to feed his family at all costs, or is he an immoral man for having broken the law, and stealing is a commandment, passed down from Biblical time, and placed in modern societies, because it is an understood rule?

According to Singer's principle, it breaks down to this:

Very Bad Thing: a starving family

Morally significant act: stealing bread

If the person finds stealing bread to be morally equivalent or greater than his family starving, then no. He won't steal the bread. But if he finds it morally inferior to his family starving, then he should steal the bread.

Of course, this rule applies to all kinds of morals. You'll get a different answer from the principle depending on whom sets the scales of moral significance.

You will get a split answer on this, as others will seemingly have a different scale of morality. So while your idea is extremely ideal, one has to consider, Razor, that it is perhaps too ideal, and that the concept of morality is one that is constantly in flux, perhaps never to be completely accepted by any one term.

The principal isn't set for a massive scale of action. A president shouldn't justify his making the entire nation do an action by saying "Well...I deem it morally acceptable" and expect everyone to like it. There WILL be people who disagree.

However, Singer's Principle has the ability to fluidly move throughout different moral laws. If any two people confront the principle with the same inputs, they may still come up with a different outcome. Because that almighty moral scale of significance varies from person to person.

Also, the principle only states that you OUGHT to do it, not that we should make you. Just in case you were confused with that.

Of course, you could be arguing against my belief that everyone should not want other people to starve. I'll readily admit that's way too naive. But I believe in the inherent good of man. I can't bring myself to believe that a man would see a starving person on the road and say "Meh, not my problem." However, I readily admit that this most likely the issue with some. But in my head, away from the forum, I don't believe it. Nuhuh.