Are we moral monsters? | Peter Singer on Charitable Giving

Peter Singer argues that you are morally obliged to donate to charity even at considerable personal cost. Is he right?

RESOURCES

THE USUAL...

[Jonas]

There's a crucial difference between those two scenarios, namely that in the "Shallow Pond Case" you are only required to save one child once, whereas in the case of charity you need to save children every single day for the rest of your life.
A more analagous thought experiment is rendered in this essay: "Sometimes there is nothing wrong with letting a child drown" by Travis Timmerman

[existential_o]

One of the true perks of a philosophy degree is that you don’t have to worry about left over money😎

Edit: Someone could formulate a somewhat plausible argument that obligates people not to pursue a career in philosophy. They could argue that, if we are morally obligated to give money to charity organizations, then surely we ought to pursue careers that generate a larger salary, thus more money to be donated. If so, then philosophy, a relatively lower income field, should be avoided.

However, I wouldn’t know about my obligation to give to the poor had I not been informed by people who pursue philosophy

[josephtnied]

This argument can be extended to say you have a moral obligation to pursue the highest paying (non-exploitative) job possible regardless of your talents or desires, because your own enjoyment of your job isn't worth anything to that of how many lives you could save by earning more.

RIP philosophy majors

[SuperLemonfish]

i'll save the child, but a literal endless stream of children drowning is too much. I would eventually stop saving them. Im fact i have to deal with this IRL daily with the snails and mice at my work. I save what i can, but i cannot spend the rest of my life tending to snails. I gotta prioritize myself eventually.

[davidjacquemotte]

Another point I’d like to offer: Moral Luck. Sure, the kids starving are unlucky to be born in such circumstances. But it seems I happen to be born with the drive, intelligence and ability to make more than I minimally need at the moment. So I’m unlucky as well to be such that I have this obligation to give. It seems it would be better for me if I was only smart enough or able enough to squeak by, but not make enough to save up.

[Sui_Generis]

Was introduced to this argument by alex O'Connor on "Should we sell all our possessions?". Good structure of video Joe, enjoyed it

[goldenalt]

There's no donation link on the video so i must conclude you've determined that we are not monsters.

[davidjacquemotte]

Thanks, Joe. Keep up the great work.

A few of my objections have been mentioned, but I’m not sure this one has: if it’s one, maybe two kids, fine. But after like 20 kids drowning in the same pond, do t you think someone should build a damn fence? Like, why are we okay with the extremely poor popping out kids like a PEZ dispenser? When should they be forced to take responsibility for the suffering they cause?

Besides, I thought they were all against the “white savior” motif these days.

[tylerkroenke]

Coming from someone who considers Peter Singer one of his least favorite philosophers, I still think that trying to quibble with the details of the thought experiment, or justify oneself as a good person despite not donating “x”% of one’s income more or less misses a much more important point.

The reality is, the average first-world citizen has some incredible opportunities, due to technological and economic factors, to do some tremendous good by making sacrifices of our money and time to help others. I’m definitely not perfect, and struggle to work my way towards sacrificing more. This doesn’t look the same for everyone because people have different duties and gifts, but what a wonderful opportunity to love your neighbor.

[lolroflmaoization]

i usually like Peter Singers practical ethical arguments, even though i dont share his utilitarian views, but i must say some of the stuff he wrote basically in support on the Israeli assault at least early on in the conflict was morally abhorrent, Ben Burgis wrote a good substack article on it titled "Peter Singer, Palestine, and the Professional Perils of Philosophy "

[josephtnied]

I do agree with Singer, but I also think we need to factor in wealth's ability to generate additional wealth that can be used to make greater future donations.

We should also factor in wealth's ability to allow us to become influential in making systematic changes politically or socially.

[anthonyrowden]

I like the transition from the bugatti to the trolley problem. 😂

[hazemhazem]

maybe i missed a video, but have you ever made a video on anti-natalism ? i'm looking for your view on it and perhaps if you checked out the debate between David Benataar and Jordan Peterson, what do you think about Peterson's critique of it? i'm not sure is peterson made good points or just didn't understand the argument :'D
Thanks

[SeekingTruth]

Haven't watched the whole video yet. Interesting topic. I ask myself this question so often. Though tbh I don't have much money. So, how to reconcile this thought with yourself. Looking forward to watch.

[davidr]

This argument is one that, in a sense, almost everyone has considered to one degree or another. However, one possible road to go down as far as an objection goes is people’s decisions about how they spend their money might seem capricious and careless, but I have doubts this is the case. Even if we aren’t always aware of the reasons, the good reasons may be underlying the decisions.

Financial decisions are incremental, not categorically bad or good. For example, we might choose to buy a nice house as opposed to living in a cheap apartment. Will this mindset affect their incentives in which job they choose or how hard they work? I think this is likely the case. And your decision affects far more people than you might realize. Your job can affect the well being of countless people.

Also, will your choice to live in an apartment affect your safety or the safety of your children or the long term well being of your children? I think this is likely the case.

Examples like this could be brought up in far more cases than one might first realize. I think a lot of this confusion stems from the idea that wealth is a zero sum game. But quite literally billions of people are making billions and billions and trillions of incremental decisions. And the point is, they might not always seem worthwhile, but I contend they are far more rational than they first appear.

[Sveccha]

But I’m a simple man! All i need is food, water, internet, and MOR uploads.

[logicalliberty]

A really interesting and challenging argument

[wmtheta]

Suppose you are heading to a charity event with celebrity intellectual Joe Schmid in the back seat, and you know that Joe being there will raise heaps and heaps of cash for the event. It is during this travel that you come across the child in the shallow pond (only this time you know saving the child will take an amount of time which will prevent you from bringing Joe to the charity event).

I have a strong intuition that you should save the child even in this case. Am I a moral monster for prioritizing the kid in the shallow pond over the many many children that the charity event would have saved had Joe Schmid been there?

[farazkhalid]

Can we put conditions on the obligation to save lives. Why is this obligation absolute and unconditional.

[magno]

The argument is indeed very interesting, and I'm inclined to think that it's successful to some extent. However, the transition from (1) to (2) in the case of Shallow Pond isn't clear to me. In this scenario, you're faced with the choice of saving a life (something very precious) at the cost of something almost trivial (your shoes and clothes) or not saving the life. It seems to me that this is why we intuitively feel morally obligated to save the child; you can perform a great deed at a small price. However, (2) adds the clause "even at considerable personal cost, " which is slightly different and I think it could affect the argument's conclusion. My objection (or more of a question) is precisely how we define "considerable personal cost" here.

To see why this is important, let's change the example a bit. Instead of wetting my shoes and clothes, my daughter will die if I save the child. Plausibly, Singer doesn't want to include cases like these in the "considerable personal cost" clause (because if he did, (2) would obviously become false). However, how does he distinguish between this case and other cases where there are significant personal costs (perhaps slightly less, but still significant)? Initially, you referred to Singer's idea that we shouldn't donate only when necessary to have a "minimally decent" life. The problem is that in this case, the above example would fall within the clause. Perhaps there are some ways to specify this notion more carefully, but to evaluate the argument, we would need that. I understand that this is just a video presenting the argument, but I think these considerations are important. I would greatly appreciate your interaction here. Much love❤