Is Peter Singer a hypocrite?
After the final dinner of the NUBC conference, Peter Singer spoke about global poverty. (There was a vegan option on the menu, of course.) The world’s most famous bioethicist came full circle to the idea that launched his career. His 1972 article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” challenged readers with the following tale: You come across a child drowning in a pond. You can easily wade in and save the child, but you will have to sacrifice your brand new expensive shoes. What should you do? “If you just walk on by,” Singer told us last night, “we consider you a monster.” But is that really so different from what you’re doing right now by not helping any of the millions of children around the world dying needlessly of poverty-related illnesses?
Singer has a new book out–The Life You Can Save–and a new strategy for convincing affluent people to help the poor: Encourage everyone to give a very small amount of their disposable income. Singer admits that the amount is far less, according to his theory, than people are morally obliged to give. “But as a utilitarian,” he said, his goal is to obtain the best outcome possible. Ask people to be saints, and only a few will step forward. Ask them to be slightly generous and far more people will give, adding up to a far greater total effect. At the time of this writing, his website lists 1,570 people who have pledged to donate the charity he requests, which is adjusted according to the donater’s income. He even provides a global map of where these generous people reside. (It’s an impressive distribution.)
After the talk, I asked Singer about his wrangle with Stephen Colbert. “For the record, how much of the cost of your book is going to save the world’s poor?” Singer’s answer would have been a good reply to Colbert’s jab. “100% of the profits I receive from the sale of the book go to charity,” he said, adding with a note of disappointment that his share only amounts to about 10% of its $22 price. The rest goes to Random House. Singer tried to convince the publishing company to donate a portion of its profits to charity as well, but they refused.
So for the record, Singer is clearly not a hypocrite. He walks the walk. But I wonder, is he doing the right thing by asking the world to give far less to the poor than they should? Or is it better for a radical leader to stick to his radical message? Imagine if Jesus, instead of telling people to “turn the other cheek” when wronged, said, “Take your revenge, but don’t hit back quite as hard as you usually do.”
Is the world worse off in some way, even if Singer’s pragmatic strategy pays off?
–John Bohannon
March 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Just for the record, Colbert’s question that he didn’t permit Singer to answer was: “This (book) goes for 22 bucks, how many people could that feed?” It’s a different question than what % of the book is going to charity. In my mind, Singer has it right. $22 really isn’t that much for a hardback or to persuade someone to make a life-long commitment to helping the 1/5 of the population that lives in poverty. If you’re concerned about it, buy the book, read it, and then pass it on.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
That’s true. Colbert’s jab was really that Singer’s $22 book is yet another luxury that we should do without in order to help the poor, according to Singer’s theory. But the fact that all of Singer’s income from the book goes to the poor does deflect that a bit. But what about the question? Do you think that the world is worse off in any way when a radical like Singer softens his moral demands?
–John Bohannon
March 16th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Thank you for asking that question… I’m sure it was on everyone’s mind.
When I watched the clip of his “wrangle” with Stephen Colbert… one of the first things Colbert said caught my attention, “if I give to the poor… then I would be poor.” I think a good percentage of wealthier people may think this (whether or not its true). Their opinion of “poor” seems to be a little skewed from the average-joe’s poor and definitely different from a person who has visited Africa’s definition of poor. Peter Singer knows his audience… and he knows better than to ask for what we really should be giving. John, I think you’re right that he walks the walk and in doing so, gives him credit.
By the way… publishing company should cough up a portion of profits… kind of shows they’re not standing by their products.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
A radical ’softening his moral demands’ turns out to get more followers than a radical tout court. How much better or worse off the world is, can be measured by how many goods flow from the wealthy to the poor. It seems that by raising awareness, Singer at least gets a bit more money flowing in the right direction. Start small.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I agree with Katrien. Singer is staying true to utilitarianism if it is true that a larger number of people will be willing to make life-long commitments if the expectations are more reasonable. Once people get used to giving 1-2% of their income to organizations that are working to bring people out of poverty, they just might realize they can part with 5 or even 10%. Doing something is better than doing nothing because what is being asked of you feels unreachable.
I think his book was a great value. I’m going to use much of his research in my public health course.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Sounds like the classic dilemma for cause-advocating radicals (and politicians): do you content yourself with their money, or do you not stop until you change their minds too, at the risk of losing supporters? Katrien has a point that not softening your demands might do you more harm than good. But is the only thing that matters the final account? Is it naive to think that there should be “principles” involved too?
First of all, Singer doesn’t actually know (unless he does…I haven’t read the book) that people will be less generous if he asked them to give just a little more. And maybe the supporters he’d lose are made up for by the people who end up actually giving their proper share.
And pragmatic “accounting” aside, we don’t need to think of generous acts only as enabling a transaction between the haves to the have-nots. They also play a social role in reinforcing values (i.e. empathy, worldliness, etc). To this end, it isn’t enough just to count how much people give, but to get them to commit intellectually to the cause. This is why I think a $22 book (and the publishing companies that profit from it) is still worth the seeming diversion of money, in the amount of cultural value it encourages. Americans having a fuzzy warm feeling isn’t directly going to help others around the world. But it isn’t a negligible result of Singer’s efforts just because it can’t be measured like money can be.
(BTW, hi everyone! I’m a senior at Harvard. John invited me to comment on the blog — very interesting! I wish I could have gone to this conference…)
March 17th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Though I do agree with Singer, I think that the “moral math” solution still just brushes the surface of real issues. We live in a society where certain groups of people are considered disposable. The philanthropy component is a pragmatic necessity, but I think it is dangerous to assume that it is enough. It’s about a social construct–one in which people’s worth is determined by their socioeconomic status (totally my opinion, of course).
I was born in a developing nation and lived in eastern Ky for about half of my life. I know how people in those areas are treated. I think that the first world’s capitalist mentality has translated into a social structure in which is acceptable to gauge everything/one’s value in correlation to income. Furthermore, I think there is also an interesting mix of meritocracy within the US (the “American dream,” if you will). These two variables together have created a society in which we assume that everyone has opportunity and those that don’t take advantage or aren’t capable of taking advantage of those opportunities should necessarily be left behind…because that’s just how it works, apparently.