Jared Johnson
PHIL 301 – Thought Paper 1
Total Word Count: 3,737
The Duty of Charity: A Rumination of Philanthropic Obligation
Of all the topics involved in defining ourselves morally and producing a consensus of
proper ethics, perhaps none is more controversial and opaque than outlining a human’s charitable
obligations to society. We live in a diverse world of vast knowledge with no shortage of
information and ideas. With all the different points of view regarding what is right and wrong, it
becomes very difficult for a group of any amount of people to truly agree upon what we, as
human beings, should consider a duty or obligation to the whole of society in our day-to-day
lives. More specifically: To what extent are we ethically obliged to help others who lack what we
consider the necessities of life? Can we put a dollar amount on our charitable responsibility? To
one extreme, there is no duty to give to charity and anyone who acquires such charity should
consider himself or herself lucky and obliged to the donor. To the contrary, charity should be
assumed a duty as a human being active in our society, and anything not necessary to one’s
livelihood should be donated to help those less fortunate in order to provide the most well being
for the greatest number of people. Most of us would consider ourselves somewhere between
these two extremes and with most respects to ethical study, rightfully so. So if we can’t seem to
conclude, with certainty, a concrete answer of where we should be on this scale of philanthropy;
it’s important to consider what others think, why they think that way, and whether we should
reconsider our own positions on charity.
On the most charitable side of the scale of philanthropy, Peter Singer explains his view in
his article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. In this third person account, Singer uses a
1
Brazilian film titled “Central Station” to clarify his position. In this movie, a schoolteacher
named Dora unknowingly helps deliver a young homeless boy to his supposed adoptive parents,
only to find out later he was actually going to be killed and his organs sold for transplantation.
Dora goes on to save the boy and Singer poses a critical question, “In the end, what is the ethical
distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American
who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one — knowing that the money could be donated
to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?” (Singer, para. 7) In another
example, Singer references a book written in 1996 by philosopher Peter Unger, “Living High and
Letting Die”. In his book, Unger presents a series of fictitious stories to help us think about how
we live and consider our own obligations to give to charity. One of such stories involves Bob and
his precious Bugatti sports car that he has invested in as his retirement fund. Bob is put in a
situation to decide whether to save a child’s life or save his car from annihilation. He chooses to
preserve his financial security and the child is killed. Both Unger and Singer agree that letting
the child die is very wrong and Bob made the wrong choice. That being considered, Singer goes
on to remind us we all have the abilities to save a child on a daily basis and shows how Unger
includes the toll-free numbers for Unicef and Oxfam America directly in his book. Unger also
includes a calculation of $200 as being enough to offer safe passage for a child between the years
of two and six. Both of these stories include the potential demise of children as everyone can
agree they have not brought the poverty upon themselves, and the examples can be used to
simplify things and rule out a number of arguments. Singer then goes on to claim that by not
donating to save a child’s life, we are no better than Bob and his Bugatti. One difference between
Bob and us is Bob is the only one who could have saved that child, whereas we all have the
capabilities to save a child every day. He introduces our inclination to use follow-the-crowd
2
ethics- the kind of ethics that justified Nazi engagements to the German people. (Singer, para.
16) There’s definitely a sense of guilt imposed on the reader at this point in the article. You’re
encouraged to pick up the phone and donate in order to free your conscience from feeling like a
child-murdering, Nazi-endorsing, self-righteous prude. To defend his philanthropic stance,
Singer then goes on to try and define the end to which we should consider our charities
sufficient. “… only when the sacrifices become very significant indeed would most people be
prepared to say that Bob does nothing wrong when he decides not to throw the switch.” (para.
20) He then considers a salary of $50,000 and concludes in order to be morally decent, $20,000
of that salary should be donated annually. If more or less is made, the equivalent percentage
should be considered. Singer then ends his article by claiming Bob’s situation is not merely
unlucky, as we should consider ourselves to be in the very same situation, all the time.
Being that Singer is a self-proclaimed utilitarian philosopher; in order to properly assess
his claims and determine if they are right or wrong, one should first analyze one of the founders
of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill. An examination of Mill’s book, “Utilitarianism” reveals many
similarities between Mill and Singer and helps prove Singer’s philosophical stance. Mill spends
much of this book simply defining what exactly utilitarianism is, in order to dispel any
misrepresentations. In explaining his ideologies, Mill writes about the greatest happiness
principal as “… an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in
enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality…” (Mill, p.12) This principal is paramount in
defining to what end all moral actions should strive for. Mill and utilitarianism look objectively
at the consequences of actions in order to choose the best course based on the least amount of
pain and the most happiness for the most individuals. This seems to coincide quite nicely with
Singer’s view that we are not appropriately distributing wealth amongst the world in order for
3
the most people to achieve the most happiness. Mill also describes his utilitarianism by asserting
that he who saves someone from drowning is doing the right thing whether he did it because he
cares about the person and he wants to save the person, or he did it to receive a reward. This cut
and dry mentality is evident in Singer’s insistence that we should be giving to charity whether we
do it for the children or not. If we have enough money for a new TV, that money should go to the
children whether we like it or not. The simple fact that happiness is not evenly distributed is
reason enough to require you to give, even if you’re just doing it for tax breaks or because your
philosophy tells you to. Another similarity between Mill and Singer comes in Mill’s assessment
of the quantitative and qualitative differences in pleasures. He claims the most relevant are the
pleasures of the intellect and those of lesser faculties will strive towards pleasures of sensation.
This could relate to Singer’s article as the differences between those who understand the
importance of equally distributing wealth and prosperity, with those who choose to value their
fancy material possessions and indulge in sensual pleasures. If you don’t give to charity, you are
more concerned with what your excess wealth can contribute to your own sensations. Mill writes
about who should be considered moral experts and therefor capable of determining what is right
and wrong. Those humans that instinctively seek intellectual pleasure above all others can often
“… lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or
opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures…” (Mill, p. 11)
Singer also believes most of us fall victim to this incompetency by failing to recognize our
material luxuries (inferior pleasures) are taking precedence over our intellectual ability to
recognize there is a lack of equality and happiness in the world, and happiness and pleasure; that
of which is the ultimate desire, is not being optimized.
4
Traditional utilitarianism can also be referenced to disagree with “The Singer Solution to
World Poverty”. Mill asserts a certain hierarchy between “competent individuals” and those less
qualified. It can easily be interpreted that Mill believes in optimizing happiness of all, as long as
you belong to this defined group of intellectually sufficient human beings. There seems to be a
number of qualitative nuances in Mill’s account that seem to stray from a desire for true
democracy to a system that rules out those who don’t qualify as competent. Beyond suggesting
many humans can be deemed incapable or misled, Mill also makes it very apparent that animals
are incapable of the intellectual pleasures of man and are of a lesser faculty and therefor not a
factor in the quality of pleasure. It’s not necessary to consider the pig’s happiness, or the idiot’s,
or the misled. This seems to stray from Singer’s more universal morality. Singer opens his article
with a reference to his book, “Animal Liberation”, to describe his own provocation. It seems his
philanthropy stems from a more modern definition of global equality. He seems to suggest we’re
all the same, whether we’re poor, incompetent, or raised on a farm. And why should we live so
lavishly when there are so many others, whether they’re children or members of a less competent
culture, who don’t even have the means to sustain their own livelihood? Though there appears to
be some differences between Mill and Singer, it seems their stances on charitable duty are quite
similar. The disparities appear to reflect the 130+ years difference between them, while the
foundations of utilitarianism maintain their core consequentialist ideologies.
In Immanuel Kant’s, “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals”, many disputes against
Singer’s justifications are equally, if not more, supportable. Kant’s primary ethical claims
involve the good will, the importance of reason, and the resulting definition of duty. Considering
the drowning person referenced earlier to illustrate Mill’s similarities with Singer, Kant would
insist saving the person is only good if the savior is acting out of respect for the drowning
5
person’s life. If they are merely expecting a reward or something of instrumental value, they are
not morally right. Kant thinks reason’s “…true function must be to produce a will which is not
merely good as a means to some further end, but is good in itself.” (p.9) To back up this anticonsequentialist notion, consider the inept evil person. Although their actions produce harmful
consequences, certain unforeseen circumstances may have good consequences. So the will must
be good in itself, but what makes a will or action intrinsically good? Kant explains the action
must at once be considered a duty and also performed because it is a duty. “Duty is the necessity
of an action done out of respect for the law.” (Kant, p. 13) Here, Kant is referring to a sort of
natural law that governs all living things. It is created by God for rational creatures and is
unconditioned, objective, and hence universally valid. (Kant, p. 26) For instance, we have a duty
to not tell a lie but if we don’t tell a lie simply to avoid consequences, we are not acting in accord
with duty and the act of not lying would actually not have moral value. So for Kant, to give
money to starving children simply because we ought to, and since we have more than enough
money to sustain our own livelihood, is not morally right to give when merely considering those
factors. If we’re donating to avoid the consequence of a child dying and not because we want to,
it’s still not right. If we’re donating for the sake of tax breaks, it’s not right. If we’re donating in
a beneficent manner because of our sympathetic inclination, it’s not right. (If it’s because we
want to be praised.) (Kant, p. 11) We would be fulfilling a duty of charity but we wouldn’t be
giving because it’s a duty. On the other hand, to not give when you are flourishing is immoral to
Kant. Since the maxim cannot be universalized according to the categorical imperative, it would
be wrong to withhold aid. (Kant, p.32) According to Kant, when in distress, any rational creature
would will the receipt of aid. Also, to not give would be contradicting, for he who doesn’t give
when capable would eventually have …”need of the love and sympathy of others and in which
6
he would deprive himself.” (Kant, p. 32) So on Kantian grounds, Singer’s prescribed obligation
to charity is right only if the intentions of the donor are truly out of respect for the children, and
not merely because withholding their excess income is immoral. We have a duty to give to those
less fortunate, but we also have a duty to care. It seems Kant would agree with Singer that we
have a responsibility to feed starving children, but it would be irrational to quantify dollars and
cents, as there is no end to that logic. And unless we truly dedicate ourselves to the cause
emotionally, we might as well just keep our money.
With regards to quantifying the amount of charity we should give, relativism is probably
the most appropriate doctrine from which to reference. It would state that we should give in
relation to our personal situation. It would also decree that there is no absolute obligation to
charity either. Relativism takes the position that all points of view are equally valid in relation to
the individual making the point. If a relativist could agree with a utilitarian that giving to charity
is the right thing to do, they would also agree that the amount should be relative to the
individual’s salary. However, a relativist could also bring up never-ending arguments about why
certain people don’t have an obligation when considering their personal life situation. Singer
addresses such an argument in the Bugatti Bob situation. Should Bob still throw the switch to
save the child if his foot is stuck in the track and he would lose his leg? A relativist would raise
questions such as these. In Norman Melchert’s “Who’s to Say?: a dialogue on relativism”, a
conversation between several people of varying philosophical stances brings many things to
light. A relativist in the group sums up his outlook nicely: “… the standards we apply- the very
rules of rationality itself- are matters for which no good reasons can be given, since these
standards themselves determine what counts as a good reason.” (Melchert, p. 51) He’s saying
that neither Singer nor Kant nor Mill can assert what it means to be rational, or why we’re
7
obliged to give to charity, or to what end our giving or taking should come; since all of their
defined standards are already contaminated by their own theories. (Melchert, p. 51) There is no
truly objective outlook to tell us we have an unarguable duty to give to those who are in need.
There is always a reason to oppose everything.
My own personal beliefs in the matter of philanthropic duty do not contend with Singer’s
article, nor do they completely agree. My approach is mostly scientific, or more appropriately,
metaphysical. In fact, to me, the only viewpoint discussed so far that I can say I agree with
completely is that of Kant’s. His scientific approach to ethics is what basically defined the field
of natural philosophy; which later became the empirical activity known as science. He has a way
of defining the good will and what is truly righteous to the best of our human abilities. I agree
with him that we have a human duty to help those in need as we all rely on each other, and at the
same time we must give with the right intentions and for the right reasons. No living thing within
the realm of human understanding is completely self-sufficient and therefor requires the charity
of other living things in order to survive. The wealthy conservative businessman may claim he
built his empire on his own, but the reality is he couldn’t have done it without others. He needed
charity in the form of random favors, investors, lines of credit, etc.… He has a human duty to
give back to society so that others can flourish as he has. Can we put a dollar amount on his
charitable duty? I think Kant and I would agree there is no way to quantify such an endless
decision, it is more important we decide that he must give because he has a duty to give and not
because society tells him he should. Does a man on a deserted island rely on the charity of
others? He may not rely on humans but he certainly relies heavily on the charity of the coconut
trees and the fish and the plants that support his livelihood. Does a plant rely on charity from
other living things? It relies on the sun but also the nutrients from the decay of organic matter
8
that was once living. Everything in our world is cyclical and relies on the former and latter to
continue with existence. There is the same amount of matter on earth as there was 4 billion years
ago. Life exists as a result of the delicate balance of meticulously created resources that must
stay in sync with one another. To be a member of society and not give back the resources you’ve
used to support your livelihood throws off the balance of civilization. It can be assumed in this
manner that those kids are starving because of the immoral actions of people that don’t follow
this delicate order of nature. We absolutely have a duty to give to charity, but to what end? I
don’t believe that can be answered. We must rely on instinct to determine when and how much
we should give. There are many things in this world we’re simply not capable of understanding
and I believe this is an example of such things. Can we define why music is enjoyable? Why
love is necessary to existence? Why staring at a sunset brings contentment? We all must come up
with our own reasons and quantities to give to charity. My current situation deems that I have
very little income being a full-time student. I believe there is very little I can donate besides used
clothing and such without dramatically affecting my own livelihood. According to Singer’s
logic, we need $30,000/year per household to live comfortably and beyond that, call Unicef and
write a check. In 2012, I lived very comfortably as a household of 1 with $20,000. Should I have
then called Unicef and asked for $10,000? With regards to Singer’s quantification, I take a
relativistic approach. You should give according to your personal situation. And your situation is
entirely unique and should not be bound by any kind of comparison.
An analysis of philanthropic duty brings no shortage of perspectives and opinions. Just as
your life situation in regard to your duty has unlimited possibilities, the subjective dogmas on
this topic will never cease. After considering all of these perspectives including my own, I
believe it’s the dogma itself that’s confusing what’s right and what’s morally wrong. Dogmatism
9
has no place in quantifying charitable duty. There should be no authority to define what is a
righteous amount of charity. We simply need to maintain the need for all of us as humans to give
to one another. The utilitarian dogma of giving a defined amount, lest be shunned, is
contradictory. If it is the goal of the utilitarian to evenly distribute happiness and optimize well
being for all, why does the conclusion in determining philanthropic duty involve chastising the
large majority of us that aren’t giving enough? Singer even admits in his article, “If that makes
living a morally decent life extremely arduous, well, then that is the way things are.” (Singer,
para.26) Is that not a blatant admission that his outlook doesn’t work? In his end, everyone lives
extremely arduous lives. It’s this same mentality that has caused me to lose almost all respect for
any organized religion. It’s saying, “do this stuff that you hate to do and brings you discontent, or
face dire consequences for eternity.” If there is a God or if Jesus does exist, would they really
shun us for not doing what some book (dogma that man conceived) tells us to do? I thought the
point of religion was to bring comfort and love to everyone. The point of charity should be the
same. Singer’s admitted defeat is the same downfall in relativism. The end in relativity says,
“That’s just the way it is”. “That’s my outlook and it’s true for me so that’s that.” “… true for me
is the perfect defensive maneuver.” (Melchert, p.75) We’re not really solving anything by saying
the choice to give to charity is relative to the individual. Nature tells us we have a responsibility
to keep the cycle going by taking and then giving back. And as Kant suggests, nature gives us
our abilities. Our instincts don’t provide the means to happiness- they provide reason, and reason
does not impart happiness. A more intended purpose of life is not happiness but rather, reason;
which must be regarded as the supreme condition to which men defer. (Kant, p.9) Singer’s
utilitarianism aims at spreading happiness. “…happiness is not an ideal of reason but of
imagination. Such an ideal rests merely on empirical grounds…” (Kant, p. 28) I find Kant’s
10
scrutiny of happiness and the ensuing innuendo eluding to the meaning of life a beautiful
analysis, as complete as any theory I’ve ever encountered describing man’s most important
questions. We have to look to our roots in nature and reason when we attempt to answer such
difficult questions. If we’re trying to decide whether we should help those in need, we need to
merely observe the symbiosis of nature to realize we simply wouldn’t exist were it not for
charity, and any amount of a good thing is good.
11
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel, and James W. Ellington. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. 3rd ed.
Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett, 1993. Print.
Melchert, Norman. Who's to Say?: A Dialogue on Relativism. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1994.
Print.
Mill, John Stuart., and George Sher. Utilitarianism. 2nd ed. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett,
2001. Print.
Singer, Peter. "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." The New York Times 5 Sept. 1999: n.
pag. Print.
12