Atheists & Christians: Will you consider this ethical question?

Question

I have been reading the work of Peter Singer, an atheist ethicist at Princeton University. He has a very strong stance about wealth and poverty. As a Christian, I am struck by rigor of his moral thinking (in this area, not others) and wonder what others think.

He argues that the injustice of some people living in abundance while others starve is morally indefensible. Singer proposes that anyone able to help the poor should donate part of their income to aid poverty and similar efforts. Singer reasons that, when one is already living comfortably, a further purchase to increase comfort will lack the same moral importance as saving another person's life. Consequently, one is responsible for deaths that could have been prevented just as much as those that are directly caused. Is your living beyond your basic needs a passive form of murder?

Answer 1

Ah, very interesting question. Anyone with a decent salary NOT feeling a little uncomfortable? I work in IT and make more than decent wages, I travel a lot (for work) and am single with no kids. Aside from computer hardware and books (my two weaknesses) I definitely make way more than I spend (most other material stuff does not interest me very much). The wealth IS very unevenly distributed on this planet. Although I do a yearly 'charity cycle' where I purge some of my savings into various charities I support I could do more.

Does Peter propose everything above a certain cutoff point should be donated? Does he? (not that it matters for my personal situation, just wondering)

I need to ponder this some more. Can you give me the title of this work?

edit: oh wow, I just read the comments. Some of you are piss-poor human beings.

Answer 2

This question is a particular interest to me because I am from the town of Princeton and my family is very involved with the University. He has been a very well known person in our town and all over. This question interests me even more because I am currently finishing up a class on Ethicis and I took a class on Bio Ethics a few years ago. My Ethics class just finished up reading/discussing some of Singer's writing on Animal rights and I happened to be the one chosen to lead the discussion/debate.
Anyways, as for religion I am an "Agnostic" I guess. I have been raised Roman Catholic by my mother and my father was raised Baptist (although he has explored many religions and is now open-minded)

How can anyone be assured that the money they donate will go to the less fortunate?
More importantly, where does it stop? What (or who) defines "living comfortably"? Who decides what we can have and what we can not? Say, if cars are allowed, who decides the type of car we're alllowed to buy? To meet Singer's ideals, we'd all have to have the same car for the most part. So there goes some of the biggest sources of jobs/income/etc. in our country and many others (auto companies).
Thats an extreme example, maybe, but the basic premise of the argument I could write on and on about is: where does it stop?? And who decides?

Answer 3

Yes, it is. But the greed that got many of the "haves" to where they are is the problem much more then what they do now.

Interesting that Bill Gates wants to be a known for all he is giving away. Of course, he has about 10,000 times more money then he needs. But the question that always comes to my mind is why didn't he just charge less less for his products to begin with. And that goes for all people and businesses. And why didn't people like Bill gates give away then, as to now after he has so much money that he can't spend it all.

It is amazing to me that people think the way they do. Still, today, people are talking about the starving children in Africa.
Any headline about this condition could be inserted in any newspaper in the last 50 years. Americans and Europeans talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. And only when people like Bill Gates have so much money that they can not possibly spend it all, do they become "saints onto their-selves."

People like Al Gore, the Clinton's, the Bush's, Donald Trump, and many, many others live in luxury while telling others what they need to do for the world.

But all that being said it is over-population that must be addressed. Less people, less needs, better lives, many, many of the worlds problems would be solved in the next 50-60 years if a one child policy was in place. Surely the dirt, poor, mother in Africa, more then anything, else needs birth control. Personally, I feel sorry for people like Bill Gates, because he will never be able to give away enough to take away the guilt that he feels as to how he got it.

Answer 4

Given your definition, I suppose I would most of the time. By your very definition, however, one cannot claim absolute relativism if any situation is contextual. Let's say you are driving all night across Wyoming. The night is clear, you are not tired, the road conditions are ideal and traffic is almost nonexistent. The speed limit is 65mph, but you are doing 85. Contextually, you are harming no one, but absolutism states that you should have your driver's license revoked for one year for going 20mph over the posted limit. Absolutism is ridiculous. The majority of laws are written for the lowest common denominators of society; those that, if left to their own devices, would cause massive destruction and harm. Most people wouldn't kill another person, even if there were no laws forbidding it. But remember in school when you had that one teacher that allowed gum chewing in class until that ONE moron stuck it under the desk? From that point forward, no one was allowed gum in class, even if there was only one transgressor. Guilty or not, you still received the negative results of another's actions, and the new rule of No Gum Allowed simply ASSUMED that if you had gum, you would stick it under the desk at some point. Let's go a bit further... Terrorists attack New York, and from that point forward it was simply assumed that a 73-year old grandmother was going to hijack another plane with her toenail clippers, so EVERYONE got a gloved hand up their butts whether they were guilty of anything or not. We ALL suffered from the absolutist knee-jerk reaction to an isolated incident, with no tangible increase in public safety. Which viewpoint do you agree with?

Answer 5

Living beyond basic needs is not murder, for everyone that has a car and more than one outfit is living beyond their basic need. But, if someone has billions of dollars, and all they do is sit on it, yes they are poor examples of how to behave as human beings. When people are in a postion to help others, they are shouldered with the responsibility to due so. Most don't, but never forget those that do.

Also, keep this theroy in mind if you win the lottery and buy an unneccessarily big house, with a pool, and fill it with duplicate items just to have one in every room.

Answer 6

I don't think most people see it that way. They see no moral dilemna with trading up to a new car every two years or being massive consumers. Western world inhabitants are insulated from the stark realities the majority of the world faces. Talk to someone who immigrated to America from a 3rd world country--they almost cry to see the abundance in this country, they can't believe what we take for granted.

I think it is a sin. How much house is enough? How much food is enough? How much consuming is enough? Is your weedfree green fertilized lawn worth enduring red tide 6 months out of the year?

Answer 7

This guy is scary. He actually advocates killing babies up to 28 days after birth. Some quotes from his writings-

From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Accordingly, from "Should the Baby Live?": "It does not seem wise to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of severely disabled children."

Also in that book, Singer and his colleague, Helga Kuhse, suggested that "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others."

In the second edition of "Practical Ethics," Singer makes clear that the parents, together with their physicians, have the right to decide whether "the infant's life will be so miserable or so devoid of minimal satisfaction that it would be inhumane or futile to prolong life."

Answer 8

Some thought experiments:

A train is out of control running down the track towards a broken bridge over a yawning chasm. Everyone on board will die unless you throw the switch to another track which will save the train but will certainly kill your friend whose foot is stuck in the tracks. Which is the correct moral decision?


You are a doctor who has 5 dying patients, all of whom need transplants to live. In through the door of your hospital comes a man who is a perfect donor match for those 5 people. Which is more ethical, to allow the 5 to die, or kill the man to save the 5?

These questions, among others, were asked to atheists and christians in studies on moral sense. Both groups answered in identical ways.

Christians do not get their morals from the Bible, the Bible merely codified what we know instinctively to be moral. This has of course changed a little since Bible times.

Answer 9

A person's 'basic needs' are widely arguable. Some people consider having two cars basic. Some people consider eating out 3 times a week basic.

It's all a matter of opinion. From an atheistic point of view I think it's important to enjoy your own good fortune but also (seeing as God ain't there to help them) we should help those less fortunate. It's all a matter of finding the right balance.

But I guess the right balance changes depending on what kind of person you are.

Answer 10

Sadly, in some ways, it is. I can't say "Don't take any pleasure." How much a person spends on oneself is, really, a pastoral issue that changes with each individual, and all individuals are different.

Nonetheless, a person who refuses altogether to aid the poor, help his neighbors, and so on really has no love for them at all. While I won't speak for atheist ethics, this is an invitation to Hell as a Christian, and we all need to be mindful of it (myself included, for I'm a fat, well skinny, pampered Westerner.