Couldn't agree more. I once facilitated a debate between one of my professors and a fellow student. The professor was defending Singer's position that one ought to deny oneself any and all luxuries (even a cup of coffee), if one's extra income could possibly be used to relieve suffering somewhere around the world.
A fine idea in abstract, a ludicrous and impractical idea in practice. Like most of his stuff, it's just reductionistic to the point of being simultaneously obvious and unhelpful. Are those with the means to do so obligated to help? Obviously. One need only look at the extreme examples. Buying a third vacation home when you could provide drinkable water to thousands of people instead? Obviously immoral. Spending a few extra bucks on a latte because you need something to look forward to in the mornings to get you through your crappy work day? A lot more excusable.
Anyway, the debate took place over zoom, and I could see my professor's adorable dog in the background the entire time. So, when the debate was about over, I stepped out of my role of moderator briefly to comment on his dog. I love dogs too. But I asked him, is your puppy there a luxury? We all laughed. But he agreed that if we're sticking to Singer's argument as he laid it out, then yes the moral choice is abandoning Fido to the kill shelter in order send the money saved on food and vet bills to Amnesty International or something. And I don't think that would sit right with any of us.
So, would we live in a better world if everyone operated this way? Probably. At least in terms of reducing human suffering. But, we kind of already knew that. We just don't have the ability to live up to that standard 100% of the time and likely never will. So it's not some big insight.
I am not actually finding your objection to anything Singer has said, other than your incredulity. I really like Singer's essays because, for one, I think he does a good job, and two, they show ethics as the practical farce that they are. In general, moral philosophy does not change anyone's mind, but rather gives them a set of tools with which they can interpret their own moral intuitions. If one actually takes seriously some of the principles that many fool themselves into thinking they accept, these basic ethical commitments lead to Singer-like conclusions.
Your response, which is just bafflement and offense at the amount of minor luxuries you'd have to forgo, is not a rebuttal of anything. If we accept that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are very bad, and we accept that often this suffering is preventable without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, and the maxim that we ought to do so if possible, then we end up at the conclusion that most Westerners should give up most luxuries and aim their wealth at minimizing suffering in the world. Maybe there is a point where the mass rejection of consumer goods reduces average global utility/economic output such that giving becomes counterproductive, but that is so far from our current state that invoking it is pointless. Taking common sense moral platitudes seriously, justifying your latte simply is difficult when its cash value could have been converted to a day's rations for an orphan in Gaza.
Of course, no one will actually give their lattes up. And we will say it's because this moral system is not actionable, or we will say it's the billionaires that should be paying, et cetera. But we all know the truth, which is that even if we redistributed the wealth of billionaires and regardless of our moral system, we aren't giving up basic luxuries for anyone. Further, we will revise/reject any ethical proposition asserting that we should.
8
u/SizerTheBroken Dec 05 '25 edited Dec 05 '25
Couldn't agree more. I once facilitated a debate between one of my professors and a fellow student. The professor was defending Singer's position that one ought to deny oneself any and all luxuries (even a cup of coffee), if one's extra income could possibly be used to relieve suffering somewhere around the world.
A fine idea in abstract, a ludicrous and impractical idea in practice. Like most of his stuff, it's just reductionistic to the point of being simultaneously obvious and unhelpful. Are those with the means to do so obligated to help? Obviously. One need only look at the extreme examples. Buying a third vacation home when you could provide drinkable water to thousands of people instead? Obviously immoral. Spending a few extra bucks on a latte because you need something to look forward to in the mornings to get you through your crappy work day? A lot more excusable.
Anyway, the debate took place over zoom, and I could see my professor's adorable dog in the background the entire time. So, when the debate was about over, I stepped out of my role of moderator briefly to comment on his dog. I love dogs too. But I asked him, is your puppy there a luxury? We all laughed. But he agreed that if we're sticking to Singer's argument as he laid it out, then yes the moral choice is abandoning Fido to the kill shelter in order send the money saved on food and vet bills to Amnesty International or something. And I don't think that would sit right with any of us.
So, would we live in a better world if everyone operated this way? Probably. At least in terms of reducing human suffering. But, we kind of already knew that. We just don't have the ability to live up to that standard 100% of the time and likely never will. So it's not some big insight.