Alyson Sprague
San Francisco State Unviersity
Fall 2009
Affluence and Morality: A Closer Look
Philosopher Peter Singer believes that the moral responsibility to respond to global disasters
such as large-scale famine lies in the hands, or rather bank accounts, of the wealthy. He argues that
those living beyond their means, even beyond “marginal utility”, should be made guilty in some way
for the non-fulfillment of their “duty” to care financially for those in need. In order to create a society
that responds to famine and other such disasters, Singer proposes a sort of revision in our view of moral
responsibility.
But is a revival on such a large scale even possible—and if so, even desirable? Empirical
studies on motivation have pointed to wealth not only as the preeminent motivating factor to succeed,
but as the identifying feature of the successful (Caotchi, 2008). Furthermore, a society whose stability
was founded on donation would likely develop an unending cycle of necessity. What would inspire one
to get a good education, a career, or even to work at all—if not the possibility of wealth? If we
somehow became “dutied” to donate our time and money to causes we felt worthy, enough so that we
ourselves were living no better or worse than those receiving the donations, would there be a desire to
push one's own limits to “succeed”? If the citizens of the world were raised knowing that they would
never be without food or shelter, would there ever be an impetus to be the one who provided, and not
the one who was provided for ((Fortunately, Singer thinks it’s a safe assumption that most others won’t
take responsibility and give up so much to save famine victims. At the end of day, he’s just talking to us
as individuals. You and I are capable of saving a significant number lives all by ourselves, and we can
assume that we won’t have overwhelming support. This important point also helps to show how he
would respond to some of the other criticisms you raise.))
Using these inquiries as a basis, I will argue that Singer's proposed radical revision of our
“moral conceptual scheme”, though possible, is not practical. ((Good.))
In his acclaimed article, “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer stabs at the immoral nature
of affluent societies. He argues that the world's inattentiveness to large-scale famines simply, “...cannot
be justified...” (506) ((no need for ellipses. Authors quote portions of sentences all the time, sometimes
a dozen times on each page, and it would start to look a little silly if they added ellipses each time. You
had it right in your quotation of “moral conceptual scheme,” above.), that the moral responsibility to
provide financial support to those in need must be adopted by the wealthy. Despite proximity to the
tragedy, despite others' inaction, and despite possibility for overflow of donated funds, those that live in
affluent countries should adopt the duty to aid in large-scale disasters including famine. Such
contribution, Singer proposes, should be the responsibility of the wealthy, rather than a charitable act;
they should feel it their duty to donate enough of their resources until they themselves, “...reach
themselves “reach the level of marginal utility” (511).
However, this massive modification of global thought, though conceivably possible, is
impractical and undesirable. ((True, but see his response to the “what if everyone did it?” objection. His
answer: not everyone will do it. We might extend this in an analogy: the child is drowning, there are
10,000 standing around watching the child drown. If they all jumped in the lake, you’d do more harm
than good. But you happen to know that nearly all of the 10,000 are extremely self-absorbed and seem
not even to notice the child drowning. By what rule do we have to suppose that our own action to save
the child is justified only if it were effective to have everyone attempt to save the child?)) We can
imagine the effect of Singer's donation duties on the once affluent—a society wherein hard work and
perseverance simply does not pay-off, at least monetarily. Those who spent years in medical school to
fulfill a dream, and those who work minimum-wage jobs would be forced to live at the same level of
“marginal utility”. Would this society, the “donation-dutied society”, even have medical doctors,
engineers, construction workers, if there were no financial motivation to work in the first place?
Let us also imagine the donations from the receiving end—a village recently rescued by the
donations of the opulent. After successfully “rescuing” the village from famine and disease, the
government would surely wait to pull their funding until they were certain the village would be able to
support itself. But a society built on fundings donated by others is likely to see its downfall soon again.
((True.)) Whether it be a lack of fertile land, or a deficiency in jobs or trade opportunities, clearly there
is a reason disaster has struck this village to begin with. To ask the world to financially support this
cycle is simply unheard of. In the case of a village found that could later support itself after
stabilization, my argument is open for revision.
I can hear the voice of the objector: People don't necessarily have to live in marginal utility in
order to make a difference. In a revision of his argument, Singer himself was flexible enough to
mention the value of donating time rather than money, and stating that one may only feel obliged to
sacrifice only something of “comparable moral significance” (510). ((Good!)) And this I cannot deny.
If some sort of requisite tax donation were in place, wherein all global citizens were forced legally to
“donate” a percentage of pay to a charity of their choice, the wealthy would not have to live so
minimally in order to support those in need.
However, the stability of the societies that are to be
supported by these donations remains an issue of concern. Let us suppose an environmentalist group
(perhaps as part of their “tax-donation”) volunteer their time on weekends picking up the trash that
citizens left in parks and beaches. Isn't the problem not in the trash on the ground, but the views of the
people littering to begin with? If those who mindlessly toss their trash have no care for the effects it
has on the environment, and no desire to change their ways, the work of the environmentalist will be a
futile cycle. This holds true as well with providing famine victims with the financial support they need.
Unless there is some way of the government ensuring long-term stability, it is unnecessary for the
wealthy to live so minimally for a fruitless cycle.
For the history of mankind, there have been innumerable tribes and large groups of people that
have fallen to the forces of life. The ancient Maya, for example, disappeared after centuries of power,
presumably because their crop cultivation was not fruitful and the soil not fertile enough to support the
size of their society. Perhaps Darwin's natural selection, or survival of the fittest can be blamed, or
perhaps the rise and fall of societies is just the natural way of the world. Whatever be the case, it is not
the moral responsibility of the wealthy to support those who, for whatever reason, cannot support
themselves. Should any future propositions arise that do not require a life of marginal utility for those
that have put forth the effort to benefit from their wealth, and a way of stabilizing over the long term a
previously instable society, I shall remain open and flexible in my views.
Very good. You seem to have a good sense of how these papers tend to be written, and you make
several important points. You also clearly understand two things that tend to elude some people when
writing philosophy papers: first, that the goal is to pick a specific, focused argumentative move (rather
than try to “take on the world,” so to speak); second, that you have to look at some of the “back and
forth” objections and responses between two or more sides. All of this is well done.
If you look at the in-text comments you’ll see that I’m worried that you misread Singer somewhat. In
light of that and a couple of other things, I’ve developed a couple of suggestions for future essays,
which I’ll enumerate and describe below.
1. Try to read the author more charitably
Singer seems to straddle two views. One is that entire populations in affluent countries should
be devoting an overwhelming amount of their material resources to saving famine victims, the
other is that individual readers should just be doing a lot more—making huge sacrifices—to
end famine, whatever those sacrifices would be. (This seems to be what he’s getting at when he
talks about radically altering our moral concepts and behavior.) You’re right to think the first
view is fairly easy to knock down. The second view requires a great deal more work.
Since the top priority in a paper is to make it interesting, it’s usually best to either assume that
the author isn’t completely clueless about some particular issue or—if they really seem to make
a dumb mistake—note the obvious flaw and then move on to a richer topic. This is true to the
basic principle that finding an interesting topic is more important than just being right about
something.
2. Find a more compelling objection, and make it the centerpiece of your paper.
This paper was solid, but it really would have taken off if you went straight for a very difficult
issue, one that requires tough conceptual work and a very close reading of the text to sort out.
The best way to do this is to move quickly to a powerful objection, which you are welcome to
describe very early in the paper (it’s possible for a good paper to be devoted entirely to one
really good objection). In this case, you might have begun with the objection that Singer sees
himself as talking to us as individuals, and not assuming that everyone will take his advice.
With this in place, you could then begin to develop some really interesting responses. Is there
something fundamentally unjust about asking us to carry water for those who are less
responsible? Do we have some inherent right to the fruits of our labor, regardless of how that
might affect others? No doubt there are also other ways of responding to the more sophisticated
“I’m talking to you” version of Singer, all of which would well worth exploring. In any case, a
more challenging objection would have been one way to make this paper even stronger.
Hope that makes sense. Otherwise you seem to be on the right track, and appear to have a real talent for
writing in a clear and compelling way. I look forward to the next installment.
Grade: B+