Famine, Affluence, and Morality | Peter Singer | Talks at Google

Talks at Google was honoured to host the esteemed philosopher Peter Singer to discuss his seminal work Famine, Affluence, and Morality and what it means to live a moral life in a grossly unequal world.

Recorded in London, June 2016

You can follow Peter on Twitter - @PeterSinger

Originally published in 1972, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is one of the most widely discussed essays in applied ethics. He argues that we have the same moral obligations to those living far away as we do to those close to us - choosing not to send life saving money to starving people on the other side of the world is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save a drowning child because we would prefer not to muddy our shoes. If we can help, we must - and any excuse is hypocrisy.

Peter Singer specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective - and few people are better placed to advise on what actions we ought to take to lead moral lives.

The book on Google Play:

- - - - - - -

About the book:
In 1972, the young philosopher Peter Singer published "Famine, Affluence and Morality," which rapidly became one of the most widely discussed essays in applied ethics. Through this article, Singer presents his view that we have the same moral obligations to those far away as we do to those close to us. He argued that choosing not to send life-saving money to starving people on the other side of the earth is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save drowning children because we prefer not to muddy our shoes. If we can help, we must--and any excuse is hypocrisy. Singer's extreme stand on our moral obligations to others became a powerful call to arms and continues to challenge people's attitudes towards extreme poverty. Today, it remains a central touchstone for those who argue we should all help others more than we do.

As Bill and Melinda Gates observe in their foreword, in the age of today's global philanthropy, Singer's essay is as relevant now as it ever was. This edition collects the original article, two of Singer's more recent popular writings on our obligations to others around the world, and a new introduction by Singer that discusses his current thinking.

About the author
Peter Singer has been described as the world's most influential philosopher. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, Rethinking Life and Death, One World, The Life You Can Save, and The Point of View of the Universe. In 2014 the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him third on its list of Global Thought Leaders, and Time has ranked him among the world's 100 most influential people.

Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

[muddlersmovies]

I think the main problem is that morality is treated as something binary. I'd rather think of it as one end of a continuum. Morality could be thought of as altruism. So it provides a codex for how to treat other people (or "the community"). On the other end would be egoism -so how to take care of myself. Neither of both is good or evil in itself. It's all about balance. I care too less for myself - I die. I care too less for the community - the whole community might perish (likely including myself).
And the whole discussion seems to ignore how ressources like food or money are generated in the first place: Through the work and effort of motivated individuals. So you've got to find the soft spot of "happy productivity" for each individual (which will surely differ!) combining it with a high moral standard that will ensure a healthy distribution of the generated ressources, so that the community as a whole may thrive. But few human beings are motivated to spend all their efforts just for the community. A significant amount of self-interest has always been the basis for many great achievements - and I don't see anything fundamentally "evil" in that.

Interesting, but several critical logic holes are never addressed.
- how do I know if I give away I will help at all? Saving a child is direct, the consequences are predictable. Donating to charity is indirect, consequences are hardly verifiable. It might be the case we just generate more famine by increasing population, actually support corrupt warmonger government despite our best intention.
- ratio or exchange rate: if I donate 1 unit of welfare how many units of suffering will be removed? There is no clear answer. It might be the case if I forgive all my excess wealth I generate diminishing difference. In case of saving the child, the exchange rate is clear. Dirty clothes against the child life. Removing suffering by charity is *extremely* complex, there are multiple actors and very-very hard to see the exact ratio of my contribution (see hole 1). If you would have chance to save the child life, you probably won't try, because even dirty clothes or the chance of risking your own life would render the act implausible (you can drown too).
- the very definition of "moral act" is missing. It seems to be subjective but here supposed to be objective. How this moral concept is not extended to the suffering of sheep and cattle? rats? forests? Should I give money to Greenpeace terrorist groups assassinating brazilian woodcutters in order to stop suffering (extermination) of the rainforest? Should I support anti-famine organization now (which unquestionably leads to more humans on the planet) or should I definitely fight against them and let people die to save the *future* generations or the very humankind from extinction? These different agendas. Singer's agenda is seems to be one of them, and doesn't even try to address other viewpoints.

[marktoovey]

So many knee-jerk, negative, financially insecure and defensive comments. The amount each person would need to give would be insignificant, the difference in your life is more likely to be the pride and satisfaction you might feel after having solved a huge global issue that saved and changed hundreds of thousands of lives and set a great example to humanity on the whole. It is a society's duty to support and care for the most vulnerable but our current economically developed society's are more inclined to judge and oppress the needy rather than aid and enable them.

[gabrigamerskyrim]

I think the main problem with the drowning child example is that it fails to translate in magnitude to the problem of famine and poverty. I think a more accurate example would be the following:

Imagine that when you're walking to work you see a lake with 10000 children stuck. They are not drowning but they can't leave either. Saving any child can be done but it takes you time and energy. Are you morally obligated to save all of them, or at least save as much as you can before running out of energy? What if on the next day you find the same scenario, do you miss work again to save them?

When you extrapolate the quantity of individuals that you can help, the issue becomes drawing the line of how many you should help.

I sure believe that donating, especially when one is affluent, is a good deed and should be done by more people. But condemning those who don't donate is not the solution, as the line of how many people one should help will always be arbitrary.

[GoblinsAreAGirlsBestFriend]

I think this is a fascinating argument, but with two glaring 'holes' in it.
1. We are presuming aid agencies are effective, which they are not, they are businesses with very low result rates (I recommend reading The Bottom Billion).
2. I think the actual currency that should be discussed here is TIME not money. I used to work in development aid and have always said; if we cared, we would go to the place of suffering and personally fix it, but we don't, because we are inherently selfish. Time is the real sacrifice. Money would just go into corrupt black holes.

[nvdadamoon]

I don't have a problem with giving. The problem is on average charities only spend 10 cents on the dollar on the cause they claim! I have no problem giving to the homeless/poor as I know in that situation 100% of my dollar is going to the needy!

and yes it IS morally significant to me, not to give to charities that are just fleecing donor's money and only give crumbs to the poor.

[dylanmaxwell]

I'll ask a question as a devil's advocate.

If Mr Singer had chosen a more lucrative endeavor than philosopher, he could have scraped more money out of our financial system and that would have enabled him to give more of his earnings to mitigate famine. Isn't it, by his own logic, his own moral obligation to do so.

This puts the moral context in a longer time frame.
If it were somehow predictable, that by jumping into the pond to save a child that a future but greater moral good was lost, wouldn't it be immoral to get your shoes wet?

Mr. Gates is mentioned several times.
These men are of similar age and intelligence i suspect.
They both strive to live moral lives.

Mr Gates is a billionaire and lives a life of luxury and is personally responsible for a far greater charitable footprint than nearly anyone, but one that never significantly affects his financial safety, or even luxury.
Mr Singer is a not a rich man and leads a modest life, giving much, much less because he earns as a professor, philosopher and writer, but what he does give, he gives to a degree that probably affects his financial safety and certainly his luxury.

Mr Singers choice of career is ITSELF a luxury. He's chosen compensation in the form of a less stressful, more interesting, and quieter career. He has spent millions on his choice of lifestyle. Conceivably, a latte or a nice car, is a purchase in regard to self-care, which may facilitate a more stressful, higher earning, career.

To step from the hiding place of the devil's advocate, I'd suggest that we are all forced to constantly balance our giving, saving, spending and earning and endowments. There is very little black and white and though there are clear moral issues with the results (Disgusting specific stories, amoral governments, immoral governments, grift, personal failures), analogies about a children drowning in the shallows just don't hold water.

A solution is to demand institutional maintenance of the world and it's denizens. Vote your conscience and suffer no compromise.

Personal giving is personal and it's morality is so complicated that we should all stay out of each-other's calculations uninvited.

[FruityHachi]

it sounds like self-sacrifice in religion, which is not emotionally, psychologically healthy to do
I agree that donating when you have the money should be obligatory but only to the point when you don't sacrifice your own needs
on airplanes, people are instructed to first put on their mask before helping others
there's a difference between inconvenience and sacrifice, sacrificing is about neglecting yourself, and it stems from insecure attachment style
but inconvenience is something that doesn't make you neglect your own needs, examples would be choosing diferent foods when grocery shopping, or making meals/coffee at home instead of going out, or packing your own lunch if restaurants nearby don't cater to your dietary restrictions
I think that spending some money on yourself, luxuries like a massage, a vacation they make a life enjoyable, a worth living, so instead of giving up all the joys, it would be wiser to practice moderation and humility - donate some money, spend some on yourself but don't obsess over luxurious brands

[freshhawk]

It always strikes me, when this paper is referenced, that this is *exactly* the claim that Jesus made and that Christians *supposedly* believe. The whole "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven". It's also the most ignored part of the new testament. Jesus didn't get quoted on a whole lot of things, but people still manage to forget that he said "If you do not give all your money away to the poor then you are going to hell"

[bizichyld]

I have a science degree but ethics fascinates me. I’m sure it been brought up at some point, but what’s the defense to the criticism that if everyone donated the majority of their money, how would we afford to run our own economy? Part of the motivation to work it to better our own lives, so what’s the motivation to work and make money if we don’t enjoy the direct benefits? Or is that the root of the problem—that we are selfish creatures?

[Pcwarmachine]

The problem with this argument is that our entire economic structure for the past 500+ years is based on people spending money on things they may not have truly needed. And what happens to all those people whose livelihoods depend on those kind of purchases if everyone just stopped doing that and instead diverted that money to charities. They would then be the ones that were starving and the economies of those "affluent" countries would crumble like a house of cards.

[davidpeppers]

The BBC report on the Foshan tragedy says people argued that ordinary citizens risk paying a price for helping.

There you go, some thought the price they would have to pay was too much to ask.

[prateekyadav]

The problem with argument is that no one in the comment box is good enough to be a good moral man and will find ways to escape the argument coz they know they are evil.

[Foxholt]

So my question is this: Has this ever been applied to the charitable organisations themselves? I'm not basing this on any figures, but if the organisation is found to squander more of the money they receive on executive salaries so that those executives can buy luxuries and not donate, then is it still morally sound to donate your money to an organisation that does some good, at the expense of propagating further evil?

[jacobcook]

Since Singer is universalizing this claim. I can't help but think that the systems which arose to generate the affluence, which can be donated to charity, will crumble if everyone acted on what he is claiming.

[caffeinenarcoleptic]

Far too many comments on here, are various iterations of "I believe I see a flaw in this theory, and that justifies me doing nothing."

Wrong. Search your soul, reflect on the luxuries that you justify in your entitlement ("I worked hard, I deserve these things and services"), and instead strive to donate more of your 'luxuries budget'.

[tinawexler]

Their are a lot of complexities that complicate this argument but I propose another one: in a world where we know about SO MANY drowning toddlers, how do you pick which one to save? Meaning, there is hunger and poverty all over the world, and even if I donated all of my disposable income, how do I know where to send it?

[LattWest]

I agree with being charitable and channeling our material gain into more humanitarian utilities, but I'd like to play devil's advocate because I feel Singer is missing something. I would argue that love is the foundation of true humility, compassion, selflessness, etc. An act of love itself though is beyond the perimeters of good and evil. Love is neither good nor evil because good and evil are the same thing but different ends of the spectrum. Love is outside of this spectrum.

I am unsure if I can articulate this well so please bear with me. Singer's logic implies that an act of good would be to donate to charity. I think this is a mistake as it is an act formed in the ego if it is to be considered good. To donate out of a good alignment is to do so to make yourself feel better and stroke your own ego. You do so to avoid feelings of guilt, shame, fear, anxiety. This leads back to good and evil being the same as there are qualities of both found in each other no matter where you are on the spectrum. To donate to charity out of love would be free of the ego, as you would be acting on behalf of someone outside of yourself. Thus you won't have negative qualities, like guilt, maintaining a hold over you. As stated earlier, love is neither good or evil. It's an expression of the soul which is beyond the ego. The point I think we should all take away from is that absolutes are an illusion in this world. Absolutes, like good vs. evil, are tools we use to help easily categorize and rationalize things as simply as possible. That however is not reflective of the true reality. Morality should be rationalized under the principle of our actions being rooted in love. When they are rooted in the ego, they are just as bad regardless if they are classified as good or evil. To close, I believe that it's not a matter of if we are good or evil but if our actions are founded on love or not. I don't think denying love is an evil act but more reflective on the growing we need to do.

[mayarathan]

The real solution would be to force the governments to take the right stand in major global events in favour of humanity and not be driven purely by national and corporate interests. But that comes from public pressure. People who care about such issues happening in far away places are minority. But they can influence others to take a stand at least temporarily. Coincidentally, the people who donate and pressurize governments are mostly the same.

[michaelmcghee]

The issue lies in our need to take part in the system within which we live. If we are to donate all money we would ordinarily spend on 'luxuries' such as Coffee, eating out, new clothes, new cars etc, soon enough nobody will have any money to donate. Money needs to be earned in a capitalist society, and you earn money by providing goods and services, without consumption of those goods and services nobody earns money and none can be donated to charitable causes.

While capitalism is probably to blame for much of the inequalities and poverties we see across the third world - and at home - it's also the only way we (presently) can earn the money to then donate in the hope of lifting people out of poverty and address inequality. If we're to address that it has to be done from the top down, until then the most moral thing to do is to continue taking part in the society in which we live whilst doing *more* to help charitable causes.