I'm looking for a link to an article on philosophy / morality that I can't seem to find.
June 1, 2010 5:36 PM Subscribe
I'm looking for a link to an article on philosophy / morality that I can't seem to find.
My memory is a bit foggy, but I seem to recall reading an article a few years ago that kind of blew my mind, but I haven't been able to find it since.
It has to do with the moral implications of the fact that many people have it within their power to use their money (or other resources) to either buy something for themselves, or to use it to effect some good for someone in the world.
I believe the argument went something like this. Let's say you are offered by someone a choice between saving someone's life and being given a free HDTV. Which would you choose? I would hope that most people would choose to save the person's life.
Now, let's say that you have $1000 saved in your bank account, which you have been saving for a new television. But you receive an email from a charity organization asking for donations for a cause that is sure to save human lives, perhaps as many as one life for every $1000 donated. Do you buy the TV, or send the money to charity?
What is the real difference between these two scenarios? What makes it morally okay to buy yourself a television in the second scenario but not choose the TV in the first?
That's the gist of the link. Can you help me find it?
My memory is a bit foggy, but I seem to recall reading an article a few years ago that kind of blew my mind, but I haven't been able to find it since.
It has to do with the moral implications of the fact that many people have it within their power to use their money (or other resources) to either buy something for themselves, or to use it to effect some good for someone in the world.
I believe the argument went something like this. Let's say you are offered by someone a choice between saving someone's life and being given a free HDTV. Which would you choose? I would hope that most people would choose to save the person's life.
Now, let's say that you have $1000 saved in your bank account, which you have been saving for a new television. But you receive an email from a charity organization asking for donations for a cause that is sure to save human lives, perhaps as many as one life for every $1000 donated. Do you buy the TV, or send the money to charity?
What is the real difference between these two scenarios? What makes it morally okay to buy yourself a television in the second scenario but not choose the TV in the first?
That's the gist of the link. Can you help me find it?
Best answer: Sounds like The Singer Solution to World Poverty, which is a popular article written for the NY times and frequently reprinted in Philosophical Ethics anthologies.
posted by reverend cuttle at 6:25 PM on June 1, 2010
posted by reverend cuttle at 6:25 PM on June 1, 2010
reverend cuttle's probably got the right article, but if it's not that (or you want more along the same lines) then here's Famine, Affluence and Morality
posted by chndrcks at 6:50 PM on June 1, 2010
posted by chndrcks at 6:50 PM on June 1, 2010
I am not going to refer you to an article but I do want to comment on the philosophical issue. I believe that helping other people is one of the most profoundly satisfying things that people can do, and I have taken satisfaction in doing so, but that must be balanced by practicality. There are more than enough desperate people and dire emergencies in the world to consume absolutely every resource that you personally have, leaving you with nothing, and even then you would probably make only a small difference (a barely noticeable difference) in the overall state of the world. Very few people, however devoted they may be to their cause, are capable of changing the world in some major way. Furthermore, helping people is much more complicated than it may first appear. Let's say that a hungry family of 20 needs food. You feed them. They all become much happier, and the children grow up and all have numerous children of their own, without being able to feed them, resulting in a greatly increased number of hungry people needing help. That doesn't mean that hungry people should not be fed, but it does mean that feeding the hungry is far from being an adequate solution to world hunger. At the very least, it has to be combined with some form of family planning, and there are many other needed social advances which are needed so that these people will have a workable society in which to live.
You may (or may not) remember a song by the Smashing Pumpkins which begins with the lines "The world is a vampire, sent to drain you." For those who wish to help others, the world can indeed be a vampire. Everyone wants you to help them, but very few people will ever be willing to help you in return, sad to say. Selfishness is much more prevalent than generosity. Everyone CLAIMS to be in favor of generosity, since they wish to benefit from it, but when it comes time for them to be generous to others, sorry, it can't be done. Then it turns out that what really matters is looking out for number one. So you really, really have to be careful about what kinds of causes or individuals you support, and what kind of support you give to those causes or individuals. So yes, help others, but do it cautiously. Don't get carried away by the moral imperative of saving lives. It's just not that simple.
posted by grizzled at 10:13 AM on June 2, 2010
You may (or may not) remember a song by the Smashing Pumpkins which begins with the lines "The world is a vampire, sent to drain you." For those who wish to help others, the world can indeed be a vampire. Everyone wants you to help them, but very few people will ever be willing to help you in return, sad to say. Selfishness is much more prevalent than generosity. Everyone CLAIMS to be in favor of generosity, since they wish to benefit from it, but when it comes time for them to be generous to others, sorry, it can't be done. Then it turns out that what really matters is looking out for number one. So you really, really have to be careful about what kinds of causes or individuals you support, and what kind of support you give to those causes or individuals. So yes, help others, but do it cautiously. Don't get carried away by the moral imperative of saving lives. It's just not that simple.
posted by grizzled at 10:13 AM on June 2, 2010
Response by poster: Yes! It was the Singer Solution to World Poverty. Thanks. I was trying to relate the story / argument in the article to a friend recently and realized I was doing a terrible job of explaining it.
I'll be honest, the argument in the article makes me uncomfortable; it's hard not to feel guilty about indulging in non-essential luxuries when my daily decisions to buy things is, in a way, a choice not to help someone in need whose life could be saved.
I think you have a point grizzled, in that life is not really so simple, and that helping people in a way to cause the greatest possible good is not easy. On the other hand, it's hard not to be convicted by the very real situation most Americans like myself are in.
posted by CallMeWhiskers at 11:19 AM on June 2, 2010
I'll be honest, the argument in the article makes me uncomfortable; it's hard not to feel guilty about indulging in non-essential luxuries when my daily decisions to buy things is, in a way, a choice not to help someone in need whose life could be saved.
I think you have a point grizzled, in that life is not really so simple, and that helping people in a way to cause the greatest possible good is not easy. On the other hand, it's hard not to be convicted by the very real situation most Americans like myself are in.
posted by CallMeWhiskers at 11:19 AM on June 2, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
The only thing I can think of more specifically is Peter Singers book The Life You Can Save was released about a year ago and deals very specifically with this, you might have seen it in some reviews of his book (the argument Singer uses is normally saving a drowning child and ruining your shoes versus donating, but pretty similar).
posted by scodger at 5:46 PM on June 1, 2010