On the Impracticality of Singer’s Ethics
August 31, 2012 Leave a comment
The Drowning Child
Singer uses the child drowning in the pool to illustrate his argument about our moral responsibility to the global poor. Let us say we are heading to work wearing an expensive suit. While we are passing a fountain we see a small child who has fallen in and is drowning in the water. If we were to save the child our expensive suit would be ruined. Do you save the child? Of course you do!
All of us should save the child at the expense of the suit. It is morally reprehensible to let the child drown so your clothing isn’t ruined. If this is the case then why would we not save the other suffering children around the world at the expense of our other material and unnecessary comforts?
Distance Doesn’t Matter
Singer considers different reasons why people do less for the global poor than they should. First, he addresses the issue with distance. Singer argues that the distance between us and those who are suffering should not make a difference to our moral obligations. Would we not have saved the drowning child if they were 10 ft out of our way? Or 20 ft? Distance has no impact on our moral responsibility to alleviate the suffering that we can prevent.
Diffusion of responsibility
Singer also addresses the issue of the diffusion of moral responsibility. He argues that just because those around us are not doing enough for the global poor, does not excuse us from our own responsibilities. Take again the child who is drowning. Just because there are others who are standing around and not helping the child does not mean that you do not still have the moral obligation to help the child.
So what does he want us to do?
Singer claims that those from more affluent countries should donate to the point of marginal utility. That is, he argues that we should give until giving any more would cause more moral harm to us and those that depend on us, than good to the global poor
Why doesn’t this work: Impractical Ethics
When considered solely from a moral standpoint, Singer’s arguments are strong. However, we must realize that Singer is trying to present us with a form of practical ethics that he believes we should be following in our everyday lives. Unfortunately, his thesis and ideas offers an economic solution to suffering and poverty without carefully examining our global economy. Singer provides us with an ideal solution that is not only implausible in our global economy, but also detrimental to those that he is trying to help.
Corruption: How do we fix it?
People suffer because they have no food, shelter and health care. The lack of these basic survival needs can be due to several reasons including civil war, lack of industry, lack of educational material, and a corrupt government. We cannot hope to solve the problems of poverty by simply donating to those suffering in these countries. Singer would agree with this, but he would assert that we should be helping with the problem at hand. However, consider this situation. If a country has a corrupt government then pouring money into this country would not be useful. To solve the problem we would have to fix the corrupt government. How would we do that? We would either have to meddle in the politics of a country or invade and reform the government ourselves. As the invasion of Iraq and various other political reforms around the world show, these events are far more complicated than the simple analogy of the child drowning in the fountain.
Consumerist Society
Singers’ proposal that we should donate to the point of marginal utility does not take into the consideration our global economy. Let us consider what would occur if everyone did in fact start listening to Singer and began donating to the point of marginal utility. This would mean that purchase of luxury goods would cease. This would include clothing, cars, condos, housing, luxury foods, entertainment etc. In our consumer capitalist society this would cause a crash of our economy. Many individuals would loose their jobs and then they would be unable to help the global poor. Moreover, the companies that have sites in developing countries would shut down. Not only would our economy crash, but also it would likely make the poor countries poorer.
What do you guys think about Singer’s Ethics?