“Human Nature is evil, and goodness is caused by intentional activity.”
-Xunzi, Chinese Philosopher
Imagine you see a young child drowning as you walk to school. Do you save the kid?
The average person wouldn’t think twice jumping in and dirtying their clothes. After all, it is generally agreed that a human life is more important than a new coat.
How would you feel if you watched someone walk by and ignore that drowning child? Most people would spitefully criticize this action. It is obviously unethical to ignore the opportunity of saving a young child’s life.
Rarely, however, do people dedicate their excess income entirely to charity. As raw as it is, people would much rather buy a Starbucks drink than feed another child. Does that make the average person evil?
This is Peter Singer’s thought experiment, which he describes in his paper: Famine, Affluence, and Morality (1972). Singer’s view is that if there is no moral cost to preventing a very bad outcome, we have a moral obligation to prevent this outcome. This would include donating all of one’s excess income to charity. Although bringing an amount of happiness to the individual, luxuries don’t have the moral weight of preventing suffering. Charity on the other hand goes to stopping famine, suffering, and death. Since luxuries have no significant moral cost and suffering is very bad, we are obliged to act upon donating to charity organizations. Ergo, through inaction, he deems the average person as evil.
The general population at the time saw his claims as outrageous, and fairly so. Proximity and responsibility are two of the main arguments.
Firstly, proximity. There is a clear difference between a kid drowning a few feet away and the life of a random kid in poverty thousands of miles away. This argument, however, is deeply flawed. Singer argues that we are equally obliged to save a child, no matter the distance. As long as the moral cost is insignificant, we have the obligation. At the end of the day, a life is a life anywhere. Thus, proximity does not take away the value of moral obligations.
Secondly, responsibility. As arrogant as it might sound, you didn’t put that kid in a developing country. Why should you put your own hard-earned money towards a potentially corrupt organization? Why does doing nothing in this situation automatically make you evil? While it does logically make sense, this argument is also flawed. The child drowning in the pond also wasn’t the responsibility of passerbyers. No one walking by actually put the child into that situation. It is still agreed that it is morally wrong to ignore that child, and this can be cross applied to the children suffering in poverty. Just because it isn’t your responsibility, doesn’t mean you don’t have a moral obligation. Additionally, a simple 15-minute research session may help you find actually effective charities. Nonetheless, five dollars towards charity will always go further than the Spartan Union drink you bought this morning. The inaction argument is also flawed here as it is still a choice. Even something as simple as being a bystander to bullying is obviously wrong, as you’re choosing to let a kid be beaten up. Doing nothing doesn’t automatically give one a free moral pass.
While these arguments are understandable, they simply rid a guilty conscience at best and are selfish at worst. Singer’s claim holds up pretty well against most arguments.
This experiment doesn’t have to mean neglect all luxuries in life and only focus on charity. That is an unsustainable task, and even if it was possible, it would make life mundane and dry. I’m sure even Singer himself doesn’t live 100% like this.
Although we don’t have to dedicate our lives to minimizing pain, there are many points we can take away from this experiment. If you can do something good with no moral cost, do it. Give a compliment. Call your friend. Have gratitude.
We can also learn to give with our money instead of constantly receiving from it. There always will be something new to buy. Personally, I would rather look back on a life where I was both happy and did many charitable things, than looking back on a life where the only remnants were the ones rotting away in a landfill. At the end of the day, money on its own has no moral significance. It’s what you do with it that counts. Think about the broader message Singer sends here. If everyone even dedicated a small amount of time and resources to children in poverty, the climate change crisis, or any other major problem, imagine the things that humanity could achieve.
