12
It's unethical not to give in recession
Author Peter Singer
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Kai Ryssdal: In the final stop of his trip to Africa today, Pope Benedict called on the rest of the world to share the earth's natural resources more fairly. Remembering the continent's poor was a main theme of his week-long visit. It's especially easy to forget the needy when the economy slows down. Bioethicist Peter Singer says in his latest book, "The Life You Can Save" it's called, that not only should we give more in a recession, it's unethical not to. I asked him for an example.
PETER SINGER: You're walking across a park, and you see a small child fall in a pond. The child might drown in the pond if you don't rescue the child because nobody else is around. So of course you jump in. And you jump in even if you're wearing your most expensive shoes, and you know they will get ruined. If that's just something we will automatically take for granted as the right thing to do, then at the very least you should give up the equivalent of the cost of a pair of expensive shoes to save a child's life. And I don't think it makes any difference if the child is there in front of you, or the child is somewhere in Africa or India.
Ryssdal: You actually make the point that this particular moment in history is a pretty good time to be thinking about helping the really, really poor.
SINGER: I think it is. I think that despite the economic downturn we have the capacity now to make great inroads into the number of people who have to live in extreme poverty. I think we have the means, and we're developing the knowledge of how to do that. And I think the economic downturn actually might lead us to think more about underlying values. I think a lot people are saying, well they're starting to reevaluate the importance of what they're spending money on, and maybe to think about ethical values, and of course, that's what I'm all about.
Ryssdal: You actually lay it on, and I don't want to mischaracterize this, but you make a very strong and a very pointed argument that it's unethical, really, not to give if you have the means.
SINGER: I think we have to accept that in a world in which there are a billion people living in such extreme poverty, that they may not be able to feed their children, or may not be able to get basic health care for them, or send them to school, and another billion people, that's most of us, who have a level of comfort that really throughout history people have not had before. I think it's unethical for us not to accept some responsibility.
Ryssdal: So how do we do it so that it makes a difference?
SINGER: According to the estimates that are around by people like Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist, it's not really going to cost us a fortune to make substantial progress on this. In the book, I try to calculate some levels that seem to me realistic, starting with just one percent for people on an average American income, and then moving up to five and then 10 percent if you're earning more.
Ryssdal: So let me ask you this. Is $1 given to the arts in Kansas City not as good as $1 given to eliminating roda virus in Africa?
SINGER: It's not. I think the arts are a good thing. But you shouldn't think of it in the same way. If you think of it, the world is one in which children are dying, and not just children, adults too, but according to UNICEF, it gives us figures on the number of children dying, it says 27,000 children die every day from avoidable poverty-related causes. If we can do something about that, isn't that much more important than Kansas City getting a new art museum, or a nice, new concert hall?
Ryssdal: It's a question, though, of not only ethics and morality but political will I suppose, both individually and on the larger scale nationally.
SINGER: It is. I'm focusing on the individual level because I do think it's going to be difficult politically to change. I mean, I hope that President Obama will keep the pledge he made as a candidate to increase U.S. foreign aid. I hope also he will make it a lot more effective and a lot more targeted to where the world's poor really are. But in the meantime, there's no barrier to stop individuals from saying I can contribute my share.
Ryssdal: Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. His most recent book is called "The Life You Can Save." Professor Singer thanks so much for your time.
SINGER: Thank You. It's been good talking with you.
Pages
The philosophy behind Dr. Singer's analogy of saving the drowning child does not square with that posed in his book, "Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics." According to the line of reasoning published in "Rethinking Life," one would leave the child to drown in order to benefit a child with a more certain future.
I agree with Mariam Vanderhyde in Georgia:
"If we didn't support public media we would never have heard his ideas."
If Princton alumni were to abate contributions supporting the De Camp Professor of Bioethics position, we would no longer to hear the provocative, cocktail-party logic of Dr. Singer. Chilling.
Peter Singer's analogy is flawed. About the drowning kid and the expensive shoes. If I'm jumping in a lake, I KNOW that the child will be saved. I can SEE it happening. Ruining $100 shoes is a no-brainer. But it's not the same as writing a $100 check to a charity because I have no idea where that money is going. Will it really save a child? Or will it buy the CEO a new tie?
I am not disputing the merits of charitable giving as I don’t have any facts. All I know is that I feel obliged to give to the poor and needy where I have the means.
But I don't believe that we have to give to the most needy and ignore the people around us. When he said that giving to the arts in America is not as 'worthy' as giving to Africa is made me a little upset.
If we didn't support public media we would never have heard his ideas. In addition to this public media opens our eyes to other injustice around the world and here in the US.
Also without the arts people would grow cold and heartless and see the poor as statistics, parasites, burdens, and viruses on the planet. The arts are important to developing our compassion and passion.
I am not an American but I find it insulting to hear that maybe a nice new concert hall for students in American ghettos or in rural Appalachia is not worth it.
I know it won't save anyone's life directly, but what is the point in saving someone's life if we can't give them something to enjoy while they are living.
Does this guy give everything but the bare minimum he needs to subsist to charity? If not, he should zip his lip. I found him to be without credibility. When I have some say about how many children poor people decide to bring into this world, without worrying about whether they can feed them, I will consider giving the income I would otherwise spend on the arts to starving children. But poor people aren't responsible for any of their actions, are they?
This piece did not belong on Marketplace.
Peter Singer clearly believes that a person doesn't have a moral right to support his own existence so long as there is one hungry person in the world. He doesn't say anything to support his thesis. To him, it's self-evident. I will ask why. Why must a man live as a sacrificial animal to the need of others?
In effect, he is also saying that it is unethical to support NPR so long as someone is hungry or dying in Africa. So I guess you better stop supporting NPR.
After listening to this piece, I have canceled my membership with my local NPR station and I vow never to support NPR or APM again. Directly or indirectly.
I have worked for a mission based health care system for over 30 years. I understand Mr. Singer's comments about the third world pour and starving. However, please ask him a question>
If we extend generosity, can we ask for some form of birth control? I have traveled to Africa and I adore the people we met. However, what good would it do to save the 8th child of a family that can not support three children? If we do support, what responsibility do we have to the starving of future generations that can not find food; even with a great out-pouring of charity. A child saved into a life of abuse, slavery, neglect, and the ordeal of her/his mother watching this, is not charity. It is blind faith in a cause that has not evolved with our present or future. Man does not live apart from God/charity, he lives within. I feel Mr. Singer is very self-serving in what he feels "Charity" is. The pain of a dying child in Africa from hunger is "no more" important then the child that dies of boredom in the inter-city of Oakland, Calif.
Not to dispute the good in giving to those less fortunate, where does it all end? Nowhere in Mr. Singer's thoughts does he address the absolute necessity of having the world address the issue of population control. The earth cannot easily sustain the 6 billion already here, much less the 3 billion additional souls expected in the next few years. Giving to the worlds poor without working on this issue is pointless.
I just heard your interview with bioethicist Singer on KUOW and am sooo glad to hear his remarks about our ethical obligation to help the have-nots of the world. Too many Americans are caught in an individualistic mindset that creates a sense of entitlement and hubris. Opening our hearts to the suffering of others is a moral imperative. Thanks for reminding us.
Pages
