|
Yet how far should we go in this kind of thinking? Should we each just contribute $350 to charity and then we can be deemed to have fulfilled our moral responsibility? Do the rich have a moral responsibility to the poor in the first place?
To answer the second question first, both Peter Unger and Australian philosopher Peter Singer have written much from a utilitarian perspective about whether we (the relatively rich) indeed have a moral responsibility to the poor. A simple analogy like this is given: Suppose that Bob is on his way to the University and he passes by a shallow pond. As he walks by the pond that morning he sees a little child who appears to be drowning. What should he do? He has two choices. One is to go into the pond and save the child, though he would at the same time dirty his clothes and thus miss his class. The second choice is to walk pass the child to get to his class and leave him to drown to death.
Peter Singer asks if Bob has any obligation to save the child. We would of course all answer positively. Why? Simply because the cost of missing his class cannot be compared to the much greater importance of saving a child’s life. Two more questions he asks which most of us would answer in the negative: 1) Would it make a difference (to Bob’s obligation to save the child) if there were others walking by the pond who could save him also, but did not do so? and 2) Would it make a difference if the child lived far from Bob in another country yet he was still able to save him from death at no great cost to himself as in the above case – i.e. would distance or nationality lessen Bob’s obligation to save the child?
Here’s the conclusion he makes: If we all just agreed that Bob has a moral obligation to save someone if it didn’t cost him much, that distance and nationality did not lessen this obligation and nor would the fact that others were in an equally capable position to save him but didn’t – then we’ve just agreed that there is a moral obligation for all of us (who are relatively rich compared to those who live in the developing world) to save the many thousands in the world who die daily of poverty-related causes. Indeed, we all are in the same situation as Bob was in the above scenario.
Viewed from the above perspective, giving money to aid organizations isn’t something “charitable”, but it is the mere fulfillment of one’s moral obligations to the poor. For just as Bob saving the child isn’t considered a particularly praiseworthy or charitable act but his mere obligation, so giving money to aid organizations should not be considered charitable, but merely the responsibility of all those who can afford to do so without sacrificing much in return. That means, the so-called “charitable” man need not be greatly praised for giving much to the needy as he is merely fulfilling his responsibility. However, that also means that those who do not give much to aid organizations are not merely withheld praise for not contributing their money, but should also be viewed as acting in a morally wrong way. As Singer wrote, “We ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.” After all, wouldn’t you agree that a man who prefers to spend hundreds of dollars on a new suit just to look good is wrong to do so when the money could be used to save lives?
So that’s the utilitarian case for there being a moral responsibility of the rich to help the poor. Of course, one can argue on many other grounds (for example, on grounds of political justice) that we, the relatively rich in the developed world, have a responsibility to give more to the poor in the developing world. But let’s get back to the first question which I’ve yet to answer.
Given we accept generally that we ought to be doing more to help the poor and dying, how much is enough? S$350 is the figure good enough to save one child. However, we know that there is more than one child or person that needs our help. Singer has argued that we ought to give as much till giving any more would come as a great cost to us that we wouldn’t be able to bear. A simple way of applying such a principle would be that if, for example, you earn $100,000 annually after taxes and it costs $60,000 to meet the basic needs of you and your dependents, that means up to $40,000 would probably be spent yearly on goods and services that are not necessary to the survival of you and your dependents. If so, one ought to give as much of the $40,000 to help the poor. As Singer says, “whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.”
At first hearing, that sounds utterly ridiculous. If so, perhaps we all should try living in the same situation as those 50,000 people. Maybe once we’ve experienced the depths of poverty will we be grateful for all that we have such that giving of everything beyond what we truly need to survive would seem only right. But most of us (including myself) would probably not go that far. Most likely, we’re not altruistic enough to sacrifice so much.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Jonathan Koh
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
