Peter Singer and our ethical obligations
i found a link to a site with controversial ethicist Peter Singer's essay on famine and the moral duty of giving to those who are starving.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
Singer's sentiment both jives with what i feel and also disturbs me. What i want to know is, how much is enough when it comes to giving to those who need it? Singer says a minimum of 10%, but how can we tell? one line of reasoning would be that you would give away to the starving and dying enough so that you would not have anything but what you need to survive. but how much is this? as an altruist, would one give away so much of one's income that one is left with only just as many calories of food, say, as would be necessary to keep one alive and functioning in the pursuit of income to give to the starving? or would make do with slightly more, enough food for oneself to be healthy and happy, and if so, how does one measure that?
on a less dire level, does Singer's ethic -- which i find hard to refute -- mean that we each have the ethical responsibility of giving away/doing without anything that is not strictly necessary for one's survival? i'd have to get rid of all my books, CDs, television, most of my clothes, phone, probably my car, and a large amount of the food in my house. i wouldn't be allowed to set any part of my income toward frivolous entertainment. i'm not saying that this is not what i should do; maybe it is, and in a way, i can't see how it couldn't be, except that the implications seem somehow illogical. are we all mean to live purely with the smallest possible amount of necessary things? and if we are altruists, wouldn't the duty of putting others before oneself mean that one should do more even than that, let oneself get sick or even die in order for others to live -- and would those others be allowed to live from what one gives only at the extreme subsidence level, or would each of those others also be ethically required to die for all of his or her fellows?
So we come to a conundrum or dilemma. it seems to me that living without altruism makes life meaningless, and only an altruisitic form of ethics can be truly ethical and meaningful. on the other hand, altruism taken to its logical conclusion would mean we all die, which is absolutely absurd. Again i ask: how much is enough to give?
i hope that i will have the courage and the inner strength to give as much as i am ethically obligated to give; if i must live at a subsidence level or even die (for some reason), i REALLY would not enjoy that at all, but i hope that i would do my duty, although i probably would not, of course.
What do any of you out there in blog-land think? i would appreciate any comments.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
Singer's sentiment both jives with what i feel and also disturbs me. What i want to know is, how much is enough when it comes to giving to those who need it? Singer says a minimum of 10%, but how can we tell? one line of reasoning would be that you would give away to the starving and dying enough so that you would not have anything but what you need to survive. but how much is this? as an altruist, would one give away so much of one's income that one is left with only just as many calories of food, say, as would be necessary to keep one alive and functioning in the pursuit of income to give to the starving? or would make do with slightly more, enough food for oneself to be healthy and happy, and if so, how does one measure that?
on a less dire level, does Singer's ethic -- which i find hard to refute -- mean that we each have the ethical responsibility of giving away/doing without anything that is not strictly necessary for one's survival? i'd have to get rid of all my books, CDs, television, most of my clothes, phone, probably my car, and a large amount of the food in my house. i wouldn't be allowed to set any part of my income toward frivolous entertainment. i'm not saying that this is not what i should do; maybe it is, and in a way, i can't see how it couldn't be, except that the implications seem somehow illogical. are we all mean to live purely with the smallest possible amount of necessary things? and if we are altruists, wouldn't the duty of putting others before oneself mean that one should do more even than that, let oneself get sick or even die in order for others to live -- and would those others be allowed to live from what one gives only at the extreme subsidence level, or would each of those others also be ethically required to die for all of his or her fellows?
So we come to a conundrum or dilemma. it seems to me that living without altruism makes life meaningless, and only an altruisitic form of ethics can be truly ethical and meaningful. on the other hand, altruism taken to its logical conclusion would mean we all die, which is absolutely absurd. Again i ask: how much is enough to give?
i hope that i will have the courage and the inner strength to give as much as i am ethically obligated to give; if i must live at a subsidence level or even die (for some reason), i REALLY would not enjoy that at all, but i hope that i would do my duty, although i probably would not, of course.
What do any of you out there in blog-land think? i would appreciate any comments.
posted by jlhart7 at 6:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home