Waxing Poetically: Addressing Culture with a Twist of Poetry

Archived from December 13, 2008

After a quick googling of the phrase “philosophy of charity” I came across this blog post of a graduate student named Jon. Jon presents an extreme argument to prove a point:

I. Peter Singer on our Obligations

The argument here comes more in the form of a story. We are asked to imagine a person who has a very valuable car (perhaps there are no others like it). This car brings this individual a great deal of pleasure (perhaps even pleasure he could not otherwise attain). Unfortunately, this individual parks his car on some railroad tracks. Sure enough, a train is coming. Worse yet, though the tracks fork and he could redirect the train before it hit his car, there is a young innocent girl stuck on those tracks. He must choose his car or the girl’s life. What should he do? Well, hopefully the answer is pretty obvious. He should let his car be destroyed.

What’s the big deal? Singer claims that each of us is in the very same situation as the man with the car. Pick any of your favorite possessions, costly habits, savings, etc. that bring you pleasure. It is the case that you having those is coming at the cost of other individuals in the world dying by starvation or some other means. If you think the man ought to give up his car to save the girl, Singer thinks you ought to do the same. Further, the problem is recursive, so once you give one thing up, the claim still applies until you are living at the same level with least of the world.

II. Dan Moller on letting people starve — for now.
Moller gives the following argument:

1. Future lives count just as much as present lives (we have an equal obligation to them as we do to present lives).
2. There will continue to be at-risk people in the forseeable future.
3. The cost of saving lives will decrease over time.
4. There are ways to increase your wealth over time.
5. It would often benefit you to delay providing aid (your life would be more enjoyable).
6. Therefore, we should let people starve — for now, since we can do more with our resources for future generations.

The dilemma is that human beings no matter how charitable, can only do so much for so many. A person for instance, cannot know every plight of every living being. Rather he or she must make a choice to support one and not the other in some way. This was my own struggle this week in presenting Charity Week. I thought, How much should I give to each charity and to whom is the cause more vital - if any?

There is a Buddhist theory that is quite factual that for every person’s gain there is another’s loss. While one eats a meal, another doesn’t partake of that same meal. For every job gained there is a rejection, every sports win - a loss.

In another example Christ’s Gospel in Matthew tells the listener to give freely when asked. in Singer’s scenario the heart of the car owner may compel him or her to save the girl. Yet that car owner is likely to guess that similar situations may be arising at any given moment. Yet, he or she is still only one human being and the laws of physics in no way allow that person to save all people.

There is also the theological/conscientious idea of vocation or “calling” by which a person feels called usually by God or by conscience to do a common good for the betterment of another. In this way, the person need only be concern with the specific duty he or she feels called to by a kind of personal truth.

Ultimately, it seems up to the individual to make “the call.” May it be for better or for worse.

Peter Singer is a Professor of Bio Ethics and a noted author currently teaching at Princeton University.

(Singer’s university homepage)

Dan Moller is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maryland.

(Moller’s university homepage)

Wax well.

*Note: Regular posts return tomorrow.

Share this post with others:

Trackback URI | Comments RSS