donating money to charities is typically
perceived as something noble improving
someone's life by giving away one's own
income isn't something people expect us
to do we are praised for doing so at the
same time many charities emphasize that
you should donate money to their causes
they run marketing campaigns and send
people off to the streets for direct
engagement with potential benefactors
and they are communicating the urgency
of their endeavors and that it is very
important that you donate to them today
there is a growing and increasingly
diverse number of charities that you
could support the causes include
fighting world hunger medical support
in development countries battling
climate change reducing pollution
supporting victims of crime and
catastrophes supporting mental health
treatments improving working conditions
repairing some dumb old church and many
more interestingly it has become
commonplace on YouTube that content
creators give to charity in various
forms mr. beast partly built his whole
YouTube career by donating money to
people and charities and many other
content creators followed suit
statistically speaking however most
people do not regularly donate to
charity although the next Starbucks
Coffee someone is going to buy could
have improved a life significantly we
rarely do without our favorite coffee in
favour of donating right at this moment
people are suffering from hunger dying
from preventable diseases and working
under inhumane conditions all while we
spent a few bucks on Amazon without
thinking twice
is that a moral problem should all
people who can donate do so and if yes
how much should they donate well that's
a philosophical question
picture this mark is on his way to work
in the morning he's wearing an expensive
brand new suit it has a very important
business meeting he is walking through a
deserted local park and from somewhere
near him he's hearing cries and
splashing the cause of it is quickly
spotted a child is struggling in a
shallow pond nearby it obviously cannot
swim and is in mortal peril now mark
could easily jump in and lift it out of
the pond but by doing so he would ruin
his suit and would not make it to his
meeting which would have financial
consequences are these good reasons to
let the child drown is it okay for
mark to just head on without helping
this seems to be a rhetorical question
of course not of course he needs to save
the child to just not bother in this
case seems horrendous and despicable to
all of us
Mark's suit and his meeting surely are
nowhere near as important as this
child's life now imagine a case where
mark would not be on his way to work but
sitting at home in his living room and
the child was not in his vicinity in the
pond but in Ethiopia dying of starvation
can he save the child
yes not by jumping into the pond and
ruining his suit but by making some
mouse clicks and donating something that
is equal to his coffee budget for the
week to a charity is it okay for mark to
not do these mouse clicks keep the money
and just carry on can he just let that
child die you probably thought that mark
obviously has to save the child in the
first example considering that
relatively few people donate to charity
there is a good chance however that you
might think otherwise in the second
place too many people who does not seem
to be an obligation to make an effort
and improve the lives of people in
distant regions but is there any
relevant difference between those two
cases the child in the pond example is a
well-known thought experiment by the
Australian philosopher Peter Singer in
1972 he presented an argument for the
obligation to donate in his hallmark paper famine affluence and morality
the thought experiment is supposed to
justify the following principle we have
an obligation to help others in need if
we don't have to sacrifice anything of
equal moral value this principle plays a
crucial role in singers argument for why
we should donate to charities let's take
a closer look at his full argument the
first premise of this argument will
strike you as quite obvious suffering
and death from lack of food shelter and
medical care are morally bad this
assumption should be uncontroversial of
course it's morally bad if people die
from lack of food and preventable
diseases the second premise contains
singers famous principle we just talked
about we have an obligation to help
others in need if we don't have to
sacrifice anything of equal moral value
this principle will also seem intuitive
to many people as the child in the pond
example has shown the third and last
premise is just a simple observation
many people in the world can prevent
something bad from happening without
thereby sacrificing anything of equal
moral value this premise also seems to
be plainly true from these premises
singer draws the conclusion that we have
to prevent suffering and death from lack
of food shelter and medical care at this
stage the argument is not designed for
charities in particular but we can get
there easily let's take a look at
premise 4 giving to charities is a
reliable and cost-effective way to
prevent suffering and death from lack of
food shelter and medical care now to
show whether this is true in general
would need some evidence-based
demonstration there are of course some
corrupt charities and some charities
that don't work well but we can safely
assume that at least a few charities are
cost effective ways of helping others
and the argument applies at least to
those givewell.org is a good website to
research these charities if premise 4 is
true we can conclude that we should
donate to charities the conclusion
offers an affirmative answer to our
question yes we should give to charity
how much according to the second premise
we should donate all the money we have
as long as we don't sacrifice anything
of equal moral value but how much is
that exactly
saving someone from serious illness or
even preventing starvation is morally
extremely valuable if that's true we
should do without a lot of things in our
lives your favorite nonfat Frappuccino
with extra whipped cream belongs to that
category but also going to the movies or
eating out or maybe the smart phone you
are watching this video on the
consequence of this argument is that we
should do without a lot of luxury goods
that we cherish dearly and it's even
worse don't you love the faces of your
children when you bring home two Lego
Star Wars Death Star as a present well
according to singer's argument you
should rather donate the money for the
sake of other children in dire need of
course your children will be
disappointed but this is nowhere near as
morally important as saving a life at
this point you might frown and start to
think that there's something wrong with
the argument you might say I see that
there's something to be done but you
cannot expect me to donate everything
that I enjoy in life to charity I
cannot possibly live my life and sheer
austerity for the sake of people on the
other side of the world and you are in
good company in thinking that because
many philosophers joined in criticizing
Singer's argument one way to raise an
objection based on your frowning
is to argue that singers conclusion is
overdemanding if that's true
that would violate a well-known
principle in ethics ought implies can
no one can demand something of you that
is impossible for you to do of course
it's not literally impossible for you to
stop buying presents for your children
to donate the money instead in principle
you could start living off rice and
beans rent the cheapest apartment
possible and stop buying material things
you could somehow do without but that is
really really hard
as such it ignores a related and also
familiar ethical principle the principle
of minimum psychological realism this
principle was stated by philosopher Owen
Flanagan who wrote make sure when
constructing a moral theory or
projecting a moral ideal that the
character decision processing and
behavior prescribed are possible or
perceived to be possible for creatures
like us Singer's argument demands that we
start to donate all the money we
currently spend on
luxury goods even the money we spend on
presents for our loved ones or on things
that we perceive as necessary but really
are dispensable or put in our savings
account if we think that this is
psychologically too demanding
we might reject the argument because of
that it simply violates standards for
good ethical theories or does it even if
we think that the argument singer
presents is too demanding a weaker
version of the argument might still
convince remember the principle that we
should help others as long as we don't
sacrifice anything of equal moral worth
let's change it to we should help others
as long as we only have to do without
very costly luxury goods Lego for your
children would then be okay but a second
car or beach house without really need
would be unjustified singers answer
still holds we should donate to charity
by the way Peter Singer himself
suggested at one point that we should
ideally donate 30 percent of our income
to charities but as a rule of thumb we
can assume for the sake of the argument
that even 10% is a good start another
counterpoint to Singer's argument that we
want to consider here states that the
argument addresses to the wrong people
in its general form it is applicable to
all people who earn enough money to
donate it without sacrificing anything
of equal moral value but there are some
people's such as as Jeff Bezos Bill
Gates Mark Zuckerberg Warren Buffett and
many more who could save thousands of
lives without sacrificing anything close
to equal value for themselves whereas
most people who donate 10% of their
income are significantly impacted by
such decisions it's true that those who
have to make the smallest sacrifice
while saving many have a primary
obligation to do so but it's hard to see
why that would excuse others from their
obligation at least in general imagine
again the child in the pond example this
time there is another person next to you
just hanging out who could rescue the
child without ruining a fancy suit and
without missing an important business
meeting but if the other person fails to
act immediately the obligation for you
still applies saying well you could have
done it with less trouble than me
doesn't seem to be a convincing
excuse it's true that the richer have a
more pressing reason to donate but this
doesn't excuse others who can help as
well a last argument against singers
conclusions states that we should address
first and foremost those who are
responsible for the unjust situations if
you think that politicians or
corporations are to blame for certain
unjust situations then they have the
primary obligation to address these in
justices this response is sensible it's
true that wrongdoers should be the first
who are addressed when we ask who should
help others in need if the person next
to me pushed the child in the pond in the
first place it's reasonable that he
should be the one who saves it from
drowning when confronted with the
wrongdoing but again this consideration
doesn't seem to undermine singers
argument if the wrongdoers fail to
address the wrongdoing we might still be
obligated to help if we are able to do
so also there are many people who are in
need of help without anyone having done
anything wrong according to the argument
we should still help for example in the
case of environmental disasters so
should you donate to charity singers
argument makes a convincing point for an
affirmative answer if you are able to
donate without dispensing with anything
but luxury goods there seems to be an
obligation for us all all to donate the
specifics are more complicated of course
those responsible for unjust situations
should be addressed first and foremost then
those who can donate without the
slightest financial setback should be
addressed second but as we know that
preventable suffering continues there is
no good excuse not to donate right now
especially in cases of dire need that
are independent of wrongdoing thanks for
watching the video what's your answer to
the question of the episode what
problems do you see with singers
argument let us know in the comments
below if you like these kinds of videos
don't forget to Like subscribe and share
and let us know in the comment section
what philosophical questions you would
like to see discussed
