Philosopher provocateur Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp professor of bioethics
at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton, has made his
contemplation of the ethical constructs of all living things into a nagging
voice-of-your-conscience for the privileged. Australian-born Singer believes
affluent individuals and countries have a duty to improve life in the rest of
the world. Words like “Bugatti” and “diamond” trigger exhortations to feed the
hungry—but with plant protein only, please. Indeed, some carnivores place him at
the lunatic fringe for his refusal to wear leather shoes. Consistently
inconsistent, his support of euthanasia for severely handicapped infants and the
infirm elderly has earned him legions of detractors. His book, One World: The
Ethics of Globalization (Yale University Press, 2002), infuriated the left for
its revelation that he is in favor of globalization, and argues that the poor of
the developing world would be worse off without it. In other books he has
tackled such irreducible motifs as the ethics of George W. Bush (whom he calls
“the president of Good and Evil”) and ethics in an age of self-interest.  | | (Photograph by Robert Adam Mayer.) |
A classic example of a choice between an ethical and unethical action that
you have quoted before comes from New York University philosopher Peter Unger’s
book Living High and Letting Die: A man expects to retire comfortably someday by
selling his Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. One day he parks the
Bugatti near a railroad track and sees a runaway train about to run over a child
who is playing on the track. The only way he can save the child is by throwing a
switch that will divert the train and send it crashing into his car. Surely, no
one in that situation would think twice about what to do.
Most People, face-to-face with a child they can save, would not value the
Bugatti above a life. On the other hand, there is a disconnect between that
scenario and what we do when we see television footage or read articles about
people who are dying from malnutrition or poverty-related illnesses. The point
is what are we doing about them? For much less than the cost of a sports car,
people with money can give away enough to save lives. Between the charity galas, the family foundations, the nonprofit board
memberships and volunteer activities, philanthropy is a way of life for a great
many affluent individuals. Going to charity benefits is not really a very efficient way of giving. You
spend a lot of money to raise a certain amount of money. I think it is better to
say, “No thanks, I don’t want to go to the event, but I’ll give a
donation.” It seems to me that a lot of people really do not think very carefully about
their priorities when they give money. Support for the arts, the opera, etc.,
carries a certain cachet in some circles. But the world is in a pretty desperate
situation. Every day some 10 or 15 times as many people die from poverty-related
causes as the number who died in New York on 9/11. If you were to see those
people dying, you might decide that the opera is very nice, but that first we
should straighten out the world and get the real suffering taken care of. Of
course, there is the argument that the arts can bring meaning to the lives of
inner-city children and others whose lives are bleak, but I go to the
Metropolitan Museum in New York and I have not seen many visitors who look as if
they are leading meaningless lives. I believe that people with means should give up major percentages of
their income or assets to help those in need. Over the years, I have suggested
different percentage figures, but what is more important is to think about the
issue and take the first step. Ten percent is a nice traditional figure, the
traditional tithes that you were supposed to give to the poor. But plenty of
people could give a much higher proportion and still satisfy their own needs and
live in a certain amount of luxury. If they give away 20 percent of what they
earn and still have enough to drive a Mercedes or Cadillac, they are still doing
more than most, and they ought to be commended. They might, however, think about
raising their contributions gradually. A person who creates wealth also creates jobs, thereby adding to the world’s
net wealth.
|
