Obligation to Charity

[Pete_1]

How do you get that understanding from the statement in the OP? How could giving away everything except that which was needed for basic survival, not be considered sacrificing? ISTM that Singer would limit the giving to that which would not be sacrificing.

I made the OP, this is what I posted:

Here is an argument in favor of the above position:

Quote:
Singer’s principle
If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it
1.)We can prevent disease and death in third world countries by donating the majority of our earnings to charity and subsisting on minimal food and water.

2.) Loss of quality of life is less significant than a child dying of disease in a third world country.

Therefore we must donate all possible earnings to charity, subsiding only on minimal food and water.

I don’t see where you are coming from.

 

[davidv]

I made the OP, this is what I posted:

I don’t see where you are coming from.

Now I am confused. Are the points 1) and 2) in the OP your’s or someone elses? If they are yours, where I am “coming from” is that your points do not follow from the Singer quote. These points carry the principle to an extreme that is not contained, nor implied in the Singer quote.

Also what is the source of the first quote in the OP?

 

[Pete_1]

Now I am confused. Are the points 1) and 2) in the OP your’s or someone elses? If they are yours, where I am “coming from” is that your points do not follow from the Singer quote. These points carry the principle to an extreme that is not contained, nor implied in the Singer quote.

Also what is the source of the first quote in the OP?

The points do follow from singers quote (the quote’s source is singer himself).

Singer’s principle
If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it

comparable significance does not mean anything of any significance.

What singers principle means is that we should be willing to lose an arm if it means saving a life, it also means that we should be willing to give all of our money (apart from that spent on
necessities) to charity, if it means preventing the poor in Africa dying.

 

[davidv]

The points do follow from singers quote (the quote’s source is singer himself).

Singer’s principle
If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it

comparable significance does not mean anything of any significance.

What singers principle means is that we should be willing to lose an arm if it means saving a life, it also means that we should be willing to give all of our money (apart from that spent on
necessities) to charity, if it means preventing the poor in Africa dying.

I scanned the Wikipedia article on Peter Singer. It claims that he donates 25% of his salary. Given his status at Princeton, my guess is that the remaining 75% is greater than the median US income. He therefore does not live out the principle as you have described it.

His “comparable significance” is an artifact of his utilitarianism, which is very contrary to living as a Catholic Christian. Our almsgiving must conform to the teachings of Christ (the Church).

I do not believe that what you say Singer means is what Singer says he means.

 

[Pete_1]

I scanned the Wikipedia article on Peter Singer. It claims that he donates 25% of his salary. Given his status at Princeton, my guess is that the remaining 75% is greater than the median US income. He therefore does not live out the principle as you have described it.

His “comparable significance” is an artifact of his utilitarianism, which is very contrary to living as a Catholic Christian. Our almsgiving must conform to the teachings of Christ (the Church).

I do not believe that what you say Singer means is what Singer says he means.

Singer uses two principles, one weak one strong. I am using the stong principle. Regardless of what singer does is his strong principle in accordance with church teachings?

I’m pretty sure I have interpreted Singer correctly.

 

[davidv]

Singer uses two principles, one weak one strong. I am using the stong principle. Regardless of what singer does is his strong principle in accordance with church teachings?
{snip}

No, as based on the information I presented in previous posts.

 

[MonkeyTape]

He says this:
For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.

It seems to imply that he is more valuble than the poor.

I don’t doubt the value of Jesus Christ, that isn’t the question at issue. The question is whether we should live a life where we have just enough to live and give the rest to the poor.

I contend that is not the message Jesus gives us here or elsewhere in the Gospels. We are to help where we can, and we all have different gifts that allow us to help in different ways.

 

[The_Dude]

Pete,
Singer’s view would seem to fall under the evangelical counsel of poverty; the 3 evangelical counsels are not not binding on catholics but are encouraged as means to achieve supererogatory works (i.e. going above and beyond) and greater holiness/perfection. I myself do not agree with the notion of supererogation in Christian ethics, but the RCC holds to it.