Ethics

I've recently become a member of Amnesty International and started giving regular donations. I now feel the urge to give all my money away all the time to try to help others. I recently went into town but suddeny felt overcome with guilt about world poverty and gave all the money on me to an Oxfam shop I saw. I'm sixteen and live at home so know that I could give all the money I have away and still manage to get by just fine with the help of my family. I simply can't find any reasons to justify buying new clothes and going to the cinema with my money when I know I could give it to more important things, such as helping people in poverty, helping fight for human rights, and helping combat climate change etc. Should I give away all my savings and everything I earn? Should I sell everything I own to try and raise money to help these causes? Where should I draw the line? Millie

Comments

Millie, you sound like you may have read Peter Singer's work. If not, you may find it interesting. Here's his website. Of course, his arguments will reinforce your feelings so you may also want to look for some responses to his view. Singer is a utilitarian, which means he thinks (1) that the right action is always that action that will produce the most overall happiness (or the action that will reduce the most amount of suffering). And he thinks (2) that if well-off people in developed nations gave much, much more of their money away to charity (especially for famine relief in developing countries), that would produce the most overall suffering (since the loss of happiness from the rich would be more than offset by the prevention of suffering among those in need). So, he thinks (3) that we are morally obligated to give away much, much more. I love teaching this article in intro philosophy because it is very difficult to see where the argument might go wrong (if it does)--both 1 and 2 seem very plausible.

Some reject the utilitarian premise (1). For instance, one might argue that reducing suffering should not be the only (or even the main) criteria for right action. Perhaps we have duties that should not be neglected even if doing so would produce more happiness--for instance, duties towards our own children (that's why your parents will keep you afloat even if you try to sink yourself giving away all your money to the needy!).

And some reject the empirical claim (2) that the wealthy giving away lots of money will produce maximal happiness. For instance, it may be that if you (and lots of others) stop spending discretionary money on new clothes, music, and nice food and instead send it to the needy, the economy will slow down such that there will end up being less money overall to give to the needy. Here is where you see the debates between those who say we should tax the rich to help the less fortunate and those who say taxing the rich will make the pie shrink for everyone (and the basic difference between the American system and the Western European systems). The argument may sound implausible, though it is true that America, with its huge economy, gives the most money for aid to developing nations even though it gives a much smaller proportion of its GDP (overall wealth) than many other developed nations. And notice how charities suffer in this economic downturn.

OK, so what's the answer to your question. Well, it's to be reflective about what you are doing, considering the arguments for various levels of giving of your time and wealth. If people were more reflective, I suspect they would accept a milder version of Singer's argument (surely, we could give away a lot more and help to reduce terrible suffering without betraying our duties, undermining our economy, or sacrificing much of our own or loved ones' happiness). But it may not be wise to go as far as Singer demands.

By the way, in at least some of his writings (but I haven't read his latest book, The Life You Can Save), Singer draws the line at "the point of marginal utility"--the point at which by giving more you will no longer maximize hapiness, because you will start suffering more than you relieve suffering. Personally, I wouldn't suggest you go all the way to that point.

Hope this helps!

Read another response by Eddy Nahmias

Read another response about Ethics