Peter Singer wrangles with Stephen Colbert
How much should a really rich guy give to the poor in order to not seem like “a complete A-hole?” Colbert asked last night. Singer’s answer: I don’t know, maybe 10%… Then Colbert notes that Singer’s book costs $22 and asks him how many lives that money could save.
I think Singer held his own. (It’s not his first time on the Colbert Report.) But what if he hadn’t? What if instead he came across as a hypocrite for not living up to his own philosophy? Should it matter for you and me? An idea should be considered on its own merits, not by the popularity or integrity of the person who puts words to it. Then again, most people have a different intuition, that you should “walk the walk” if you want to convince anyone of a radical idea, such as Singer’s claim that we should all be vegans who give away most of our disposable income to help those in the greatest need. (I’ll be checking what he eats tomorrow evening at the conference here.) [Editor: See for yourself whether Singer is a hypocrite.]
But would it matter if Peter Singer turned out to be a meat-eating scrooge? Would his arguments be any less convincing?
–John Bohannon
March 15th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Philosophies like his that require a degree of self-sacrifice are already difficult to put into practice, and by doing so himself he sets the necessary example for others to follow. As Peter Singer himself noted, what matters is not what’s ideal (e.g. people donating huge parts of their income), but what is practicable (aka more people donating less individually). Given that “walking the walk” is the more effective alternative for convincing people to do as he says, that’s one reason why it’s the ethical thing for him to do (aside from the obvious).
March 15th, 2009 at 9:10 am
[...] 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 [...]