Peter Singer (born 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher who has made significant contributions to the fields of ethics, animal rights, and effective altruism. He is known for his thought-provoking arguments and his ability to challenge conventional beliefs, making him one of the most influential philosophers of his time, advocating for ethical approaches to issues such as animal rights, global poverty, and bioethics.
„Famine, Affluence, and Morality“
In his seminal essay „Famine, Affluence, and Morality“ of 1972, Singer argues that individuals in affluent societies have a moral obligation to help those in extreme poverty. Singer uses the example of the Bengal famine to illustrate his point and challenges the distinction between duty and charity.
Singer begins by establishing two moral principles. The first is that „suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.“ The second is that „if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.“ He contends that these principles compel individuals in affluent societies to take action against global poverty and suffering.
To illustrate his argument, Singer presents the analogy of a child drowning in a shallow pond. If an individual were to encounter such a situation, they would be morally obligated to save the child, even if it meant getting their clothes muddy or being late for an appointment. Singer argues that the same obligation applies to those living in affluent societies when it comes to alleviating global poverty.
Singer also criticizes the conventional view that helping others is a matter of charity, not obligation. He believes that this distinction allows people to avoid responsibility for the suffering of others. By reframing assistance as a moral duty, Singer aims to motivate individuals to take action and contribute more meaningfully to the alleviation of global poverty.
Lastly, Singer addresses the issue of how much individuals should give to alleviate suffering. He suggests that one should donate until the point at which further contributions would cause harm or significant suffering to the individual or their dependents. While acknowledging that this level of giving might be unattainable for most, Singer encourages individuals to at least reevaluate their current contributions and strive to give more.
In conclusion, „Famine, Affluence, and Morality“ serves as a powerful call to action for those in affluent societies to recognize their moral obligation to help alleviate global suffering and poverty. By challenging traditional notions of duty and charity, Singer aims to inspire a more compassionate and just world.
The reasoning behind Singer‘s ethics
The broader reasoning behind Singer‘s ethics is astonishingly straight forward:
- Suffering is bad
- If you can stop suffering without sacrificing something of equally moral value, you have an obligation to do it
- The difference of humans to other species in nature is gradual and evolutionary
- Thus, the moral deliberations of #2 also principally apply to all relationships between humans and nature
#3 makes it well possible that the most suffering of a „lower species“ are more important than the well-being of a higher species from this suffering, which leads Singer to a whole body of research and ethics concerning animal treatment.
What makes Singer‘s ethics particularly powerful for many discussions in the context of sustainability is hidden in #4. What if the suffering of lower animals on the planet is so large and the additional benefit for human is so little that it cannot be justified to eat, say, fish? Ok that seems a doable question and people answer it in different ways. But what is the suffering of a pig going to the butcher compared to the sacrifice of a human from not eating it? What is the suffering of a person in, say, India that is hit massively by heat waves compared to the percieved joy from driving without speed limit in Germany? Or driving a fossil-fuel burning machine at all? How seriously do we mean the equal value of all people when we recommend that China should fix their CO2 emissions first because our share in global emissions was so low? You get the point, in Singer’s ethics every action can be compared in relation to others. No more „we humans are special“, no more „nature has only value when it serves humans“.
Although, the biggest challenge of Singer‘s ethics is that it reveals the actual value set of persons, institutions, etc. from observable behavior. Not the most pleasant conversation to have.
The relevance for today‘s debates
Peter Singer’s „Famine, Affluence, and Morality“ remains relevant for today’s discussions about sustainability for several reasons:
1. Emphasis on Moral Obligations: Singer’s argument highlights the moral obligation of individuals in affluent societies to help those in need. In the context of sustainability, this can be extended to include the responsibility to future generations and non-human species to protect the environment and natural resources.
2. Global Inequality: Singer’s essay addresses global inequality and the urgent need to alleviate extreme poverty. These issues are intrinsically linked to sustainability since poverty often exacerbates environmental degradation, and conversely, environmental issues disproportionately affect impoverished populations.
3. Ethical Consumption: Singer’s focus on the moral implications of individual actions can be applied to today’s discussions about ethical consumption and sustainable lifestyles. By questioning the ethics of our daily choices and their impact on others, Singer encourages individuals to consider the environmental consequences of their consumption patterns and adopt more sustainable practices.
4. Effective Altruism: Singer’s emphasis on directing resources toward the most effective means of alleviating suffering and promoting well-being is relevant to discussions about the allocation of resources for sustainable development. Effective altruism, a movement inspired in part by Singer’s work, encourages individuals to make evidence-based decisions on where to allocate their resources to achieve the greatest positive impact.
5. Responsibility Beyond Borders: Singer’s essay challenges the idea that our moral obligations are limited to those within our own communities or countries. In the context of sustainability, this perspective underscores the need for international cooperation and global responsibility in addressing issues such as climate change, resource depletion, and biodiversity loss.
6. Challenging Conventional Notions of Charity: Singer’s argument that helping those in need should be considered a moral duty rather than an optional act of charity has implications for discussions about corporate social responsibility, fair trade, and other sustainability initiatives. By reframing these efforts as obligations rather than optional actions, Singer’s argument can motivate businesses, governments, and individuals to prioritize sustainable practices.
Criticism
Various criticisms have been raised against Peter Singer’s argument in „Famine, Affluence, and Morality.“ Here are some key objections, along with relevant literature that discusses these counterarguments:
1. The Demandingness Objection: Critics argue that Singer’s argument is overly demanding, requiring individuals to sacrifice their own well-being and desires to an unreasonable extent – Cullity, G. (1994). International Aid and the Scope of Kindness. Ethics, 104(2), 250-266.
2. The Distinction between Duty and Charity: Some argue that there is an essential difference between duties (actions that are morally required) and charitable acts (actions that are morally praiseworthy but not required) – Arthur, J. (1981). Rights and the Duty to Bring Aid. Social Philosophy & Policy, 1(1), 63-68.
3. The „Drop in the Ocean“ Objection: Critics argue that individual contributions to alleviate poverty may have a negligible impact on the overall problem – Kagan, S. (1991). The Limits of Morality. Oxford University Press, Chapter 6.
4. The Problem of Dependency: Some critics argue that providing aid to impoverished nations may create a dependency that inhibits self-sufficiency and development – Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
5. The Limits of Moral Responsibility: Critics argue that Singer’s argument extends the boundaries of moral responsibility too far – Scheffler, S. (1982). The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions. Oxford University Press, Chapter 2.
6. The Difficulties of Identifying Effective Charities: Singer’s argument relies on the assumption that individuals can easily determine which charities are the most effective at alleviating suffering. However, critics point out that assessing the effectiveness of various charities can be challenging – MacAskill, W. (2015). Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Help Others, Do Work That Matters, and Make Smarter Choices about Giving Back. Gotham Books.
7. The Role of Governments and Institutions: Some argue that the responsibility for addressing global poverty should lie primarily with governments and international institutions rather than individuals – Pogge, T. (2002). World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms. Polity Press.
Conclusions
No conclusions are offered at this point. It is for the reader to evaluate above criticism of Singer‘s ethical principles and come up with a conclusion of his or her own. Maybe a quote of the famous Swiss educator Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi can offer some additional insights:
Charity is the drowning of human rights in the cesspool of mercy
J.H. Pestalozzi
Notes: