A Peter Singer Argument

[Taestron]

I think you might be onto something here, but I’d go a step further. I think that, in a lot of the cases, because of “moral location”, as we’re calling it, or in other words, the principle of subsidiarity, the moral obligation may actually be eliminated, and it would turn into a mere moral good.

The thing is, a lot of Africans CAN help people in their countries. They just DON’T. And while we should and do help I’m not so sure that EVERYBODY is obligated to help in EVERY circumstance just because we theoretically CAN as long as there are very good, in some cases equally good, charities we can donate to in our community or in our state or in our country. I mean, my friends and I are hoping to start a charity to help teens cope with depression, self-harm, and suicide, and it’s in our area.

Make sense?

First, thanks for sharing. I just got an email today about mental disease and college students, so I am very interested to here about the charity. Maybe you can PM me?

Anyway, I’m not sure you can make the distinction between moral obligation and a moral good. This gets into my objections to virtue ethics in general. As soon as you say that something is a moral good, are we not obligated to do it if there is nothing to the contrary? And thus we get back sucked back into Singer’s argument.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

First, thanks for sharing. I just got an email today about mental disease and college students, so I am very interested to here about the charity. Maybe you can PM me?

No need, I’ll just spell it out here. The charity has not been formed yet, and we’re planning a meeting.

My friends and I are all really into theater, and we know a lot of teens who suffer from these issues (self-harm, depression, and suicidal tendencies), so we want to start a theater group to raise money to help teens with these issues.

Right now I’m not even sure if you could call it the “baby” stage-basically all that’s been done so far is that I’ve looked into all of the legal issues involved and my friend is putting out feelers for who to invite to the meeting. So, nothing yet, but we’re planning.

I think we have a real shot only because we all actually ENJOY theater, so it’ll be a way not only to help people but to have fun as well.

Anyway, I’m not sure you can make the distinction between moral obligation and a moral good. This gets into my objections to virtue ethics in general. As soon as you say that something is a moral good, are we not obligated to do it if there is nothing to the contrary? And thus we get back sucked back into Singer’s argument.

Well as somebody who would consider himself a (very) amateur Natural Law ethicist I’ll attempt to take a crack at a difference between a good and an obligation in very simple terms.

Suppose there’s an old lady carrying several bags of groceries. She’s perfectly capable of carrying them; they merely slow her down when she walks and put some strain on her arms. You go by carrying groceries. Would you be obligated to put down your groceries to help the old lady with hers?

I think the answer is no, of course not. The old lady CAN carry the groceries, and you did nothing to cause her to struggle with them, so there’s no obligation. However, it would be GOOD of you to help her. It would be a virtuous thing to do, but you weren’t morally obliged to do it.

Now let’s take a look at Singer’s argument and relate it to the theater group we’re attempting to start. By Singer’s argument, because we’re capable and because it doesn’t unduly harm us, we’re actually OBLIGATED to start the theater group because theoretically we could save teens from committing suicide.

Think about it. We CAN do it; it wouldn’t strain us financially (the only strain would really be time), and in fact we actually ENJOY the work. So using Singer’s argument aren’t we doing the equivalent of killing teenagers by not starting the charity? For that matter isn’t EVERYBODY who doesn’t donate at least SOME money to charities like hopeline (hopeline.com/) responsible for the death of teenagers?

It sounds pretty ridiculous, right?

That’s why I think a distinction needs to be made between a moral OBLIGATION and a moral GOOD.

Again, if Singer is merely arguing that we should donate a significant amount to charity, I agree! It’s just that if you follow the argument to its conclusion it becomes more than “donating a lot of money to charity” and turns absurd.

EDIT: BTW, to make it clear with the charity, it was NOT my idea, and I almost certainly won’t end up in a leadership position. I just loved the idea when I heard it and I’m excited for it to get underway.

 

[Taestron]

Well as somebody who would consider himself a (very) amateur Natural Law ethicist I’ll attempt to take a crack at a difference between a good and an obligation in very simple terms.

Suppose there’s an old lady carrying several bags of groceries. She’s perfectly capable of carrying them; they merely slow her down when she walks and put some strain on her arms. You go by carrying groceries. Would you be obligated to put down your groceries to help the old lady with hers?

I think the answer is no, of course not. The old lady CAN carry the groceries, and you did nothing to cause her to struggle with them, so there’s no obligation. However, it would be GOOD of you to help her. It would be a virtuous thing to do, but you weren’t morally obliged to do it.

Now let’s take a look at Singer’s argument and relate it to the theater group we’re attempting to start. By Singer’s argument, because we’re capable and because it doesn’t unduly harm us, we’re actually OBLIGATED to start the theater group because theoretically we could save teens from committing suicide.

Think about it. We CAN do it; it wouldn’t strain us financially (the only strain would really be time), and in fact we actually ENJOY the work. So using Singer’s argument aren’t we doing the equivalent of killing teenagers by not starting the charity? For that matter isn’t EVERYBODY who doesn’t donate at least SOME money to charities like hopeline (hopeline.com/) responsible for the death of teenagers?

It sounds pretty ridiculous, right?

That’s why I think a distinction needs to be made between a moral OBLIGATION and a moral GOOD.

Hmmm… I guess my response would be that as Christians we are obligated to be completely virtuous in all things. Did Christ not command us to be perfect? So if we establish something as a good, no matter how slight it is, should we not do our best to see it accomplished?

I guess then that we could set up some seemingly arbitrary distinction between primary and secondary obligation (or virtue). Saying that it would be a sin to ignore the first, but the second we can at times ignore. I say arbitrary, because I have no idea how to make this distinction consistent, unless it is through the subsidiarity.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hmmm… I guess my response would be that as Christians we are obligated to be completely virtuous in all things. Did Christ not command us to be perfect? So if we establish something as a good, no matter how slight it is, should we not do our best to see it accomplished?

I guess then that we could set up some seemingly arbitrary distinction between primary and secondary obligation (or virtue). Saying that it would be a sin to ignore the first, but the second we can at times ignore. I say arbitrary, because I have no idea how to make this distinction consistent, unless it is through the subsidiarity.

Well I guess we agree the, since I think that subsidiarity could provide the answer to this that we’re looking for.

As danserr pointed out, Jesus told us that we HAD to keep the commandments, and only said “drop everything” for people who are searching for a higher way.

When Mary Magdalene anointed Jesus’s feet and Judas questioned why it couldn’t be given to the poor Jesus didn’t agree with him. He said not to bother them for wanting to help him because He wouldn’t be there for much longer.

We can assume that our Lord didn’t NEED all of the oil. He just thought it was acceptable to use all of it on one good, and he defined this good as a “greater” good due to circumstance.

This seems to fall accurately under the “subsidiarity” principle, no?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s an interesting argument from the horrible and morally repugnant Peter Singer. Fortunately, it’s not about abortion this time.:

1. If you pass a child drowning in a small pond while riding to work on a beat-up bike, would you be morally obligated to help the child? The ONLY inconvenience is that your work clothes will get a bit muddy; you’ll even get to work on time (you always leave a bit early).
   a) Let’s assume you say yes. Now let’s extend the scenario a bit.
2. The scenario is exactly the same as previous, except we see a different kid drowning in this pond every day. Would you still be obligated to help the kid daily if the inconvenience to you was exactly the same each day?
   b) Let’s assume you say yes again. Cool, you’re quite the swell guy or gal.
3. Same situation as last time, except that we have a gang of bicycle thieves who frequent the pond, and it’s possible, but not 100% certain, that your bike will be stolen if the kid drowns. The bike is cheap, old, beat up, and has no sentimental value. If you still see the kid drowning, would you still be obligated to save his life if your cheap bike is stolen?
   c) Of course, a kid’s life is worth much more than the bike and muddy clothes, right? Naturally you’d be a pretty bad person if you didn’t help this kid.
4. Okay, once again we have the same situation as last time, but with a minor difference. This time there are other people by the pond. Now, it is possible-let’s say 55%-60% possible-that somebody else each day will save the drowning kid. BUT-we’re not sure, and you have the chance to save the kid each time. Are you still obligated to help the kid?
   d) Let’s assume yes again. With little risk and minor inconvenience to you, it would be very morally objectionable if you left this kid’s fate up to the moral whims of others.
5. One more wrench to go.Let’s say that this situation occurs the same every day-same percentages, same inconvenience-except that you can see one instance of this happening every day at random spots in the world, and you can transport to that spot, rescue the kid, and come back with exactly the same inconvenience as walking to the pond and helping out the kid. Are you still obligated to help?
   e) The implication here would be yes, right? Seems like it.

So, what’s the point of all of this? Seems fairly obvious. Singer is implying that it is not only worthwhile and beneficial to donate to overseas charities; he thinks it is obligatory. What he seems to be referring to is those little charity cans set up in pizza places and stores. Is his conclusion true.

I think the conclusion is correct (for wealthy Americans) if you agree to each step in the thought experiment.

When I first did this test, on philosophersnet.com/games, I ended up coming to the same conclusion. On re-examination, I’m not so sure if he’s correct. What I think is that we DO have an obligation to donate to charity (10% tithing to the Church and whatever other worthy organizations you’d prefer to support). And of course, it is morally very good of you to put money into those store cans. BUT-I don’t think it’s obligatory. A few thoughts:

-Let’s say in this scenario that you are a fireman rushing off to an accident site to save people from a burning building. It’s still only one person, but since you’ve made a commitment to firefighting your job is to keep going to the building instead of stopping on the way there to save the kid. So here’s a situation where one charity can be chosen over another, mainly, when your funds are all being channeled into another equally worthy charity.

-Of course, this is only true in some rare situations but there are other things to consider. In one of the steps it was pointed out that the kid had a 55%-60% of being saved by somebody else. But in real life, the majority of these overseas organizations are already receiving millions of dollars. Any change you give to them-even up to, in most cases with large charities, 1,000 dollars-is still probably only going to be a drop in the bucket. So I don’t think the obligation to donate is there. I think you can pick from a number of worthy charities.

The obligation to donate to charity is there. To donate small amounts to different charities at every available opportunity? I disagree.

Thoughts?

I know he can upset normal, well adjusted realists but personally I think I could find something better to do with my time than wade through the sewer Singer plays in. Unless of course you think it is your job to bury him. He has a nice secure job and a following of idiots who dote on him so I doubt you will say anything that will affect him one way or another. Edward Feser has some insights on this character, I would leave the heavy lifting to people like Feser.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s an interesting argument from the horrible and morally repugnant Peter Singer. Fortunately, it’s not about abortion this time.:

1. If you pass a child drowning in a small pond while riding to work on a beat-up bike, would you be morally obligated to help the child? The ONLY inconvenience is that your work clothes will get a bit muddy; you’ll even get to work on time (you always leave a bit early).
   a) Let’s assume you say yes. Now let’s extend the scenario a bit.
2. The scenario is exactly the same as previous, except we see a different kid drowning in this pond every day. Would you still be obligated to help the kid daily if the inconvenience to you was exactly the same each day?
   b) Let’s assume you say yes again. Cool, you’re quite the swell guy or gal.
3. Same situation as last time, except that we have a gang of bicycle thieves who frequent the pond, and it’s possible, but not 100% certain, that your bike will be stolen if the kid drowns. The bike is cheap, old, beat up, and has no sentimental value. If you still see the kid drowning, would you still be obligated to save his life if your cheap bike is stolen?
   c) Of course, a kid’s life is worth much more than the bike and muddy clothes, right? Naturally you’d be a pretty bad person if you didn’t help this kid.
4. Okay, once again we have the same situation as last time, but with a minor difference. This time there are other people by the pond. Now, it is possible-let’s say 55%-60% possible-that somebody else each day will save the drowning kid. BUT-we’re not sure, and you have the chance to save the kid each time. Are you still obligated to help the kid?
   d) Let’s assume yes again. With little risk and minor inconvenience to you, it would be very morally objectionable if you left this kid’s fate up to the moral whims of others.
5. One more wrench to go.Let’s say that this situation occurs the same every day-same percentages, same inconvenience-except that you can see one instance of this happening every day at random spots in the world, and you can transport to that spot, rescue the kid, and come back with exactly the same inconvenience as walking to the pond and helping out the kid. Are you still obligated to help?
   e) The implication here would be yes, right? Seems like it.

So, what’s the point of all of this? Seems fairly obvious. Singer is implying that it is not only worthwhile and beneficial to donate to overseas charities; he thinks it is obligatory. What he seems to be referring to is those little charity cans set up in pizza places and stores. Is his conclusion true.

I think the conclusion is correct (for wealthy Americans) if you agree to each step in the thought experiment.

When I first did this test, on philosophersnet.com/games, I ended up coming to the same conclusion. On re-examination, I’m not so sure if he’s correct. What I think is that we DO have an obligation to donate to charity (10% tithing to the Church and whatever other worthy organizations you’d prefer to support). And of course, it is morally very good of you to put money into those store cans. BUT-I don’t think it’s obligatory. A few thoughts:

-Let’s say in this scenario that you are a fireman rushing off to an accident site to save people from a burning building. It’s still only one person, but since you’ve made a commitment to firefighting your job is to keep going to the building instead of stopping on the way there to save the kid. So here’s a situation where one charity can be chosen over another, mainly, when your funds are all being channeled into another equally worthy charity.

-Of course, this is only true in some rare situations but there are other things to consider. In one of the steps it was pointed out that the kid had a 55%-60% of being saved by somebody else. But in real life, the majority of these overseas organizations are already receiving millions of dollars. Any change you give to them-even up to, in most cases with large charities, 1,000 dollars-is still probably only going to be a drop in the bucket. So I don’t think the obligation to donate is there. I think you can pick from a number of worthy charities.

The obligation to donate to charity is there. To donate small amounts to different charities at every available opportunity? I disagree.

Thoughts?

The fallacy here is that Mr. Singer has set himself up as the judge of our moral acts, which is a hoot, since he recognizes no moral authority execpt by a nebulous universal consensus. So he apparantly has taken it upon himself to " guide " this consensus. But Catholics have a moral guide in the natural law as interpreted by moral teachings of the Church. We do have a universal moral duty to charity. But the exact extent and type of that charity depends on our personal judgment giving due consideration to our personal resources, abilities, duties of state, the urgency of particular situations, and the assurances that, in the case of financial aid, the aid will actually reach those in need and not be hijacked by some tyrant.

I know it is a temptation to read what these people are saying but I’d rather be doing something constructive like reading some thing by St. Thomas or doing a holy hour.

:tiphat: