Singer and Effective Altruism

Singer’s style of argument

common sense premise leading to a radical (extreme) conclusion

Singer’s first premise

suffering and death is bad

Singer’s second premise

If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of moral importance, then we ought – morally –to do it

Singer’s third premise

It is often in our power to prevent suffering and death without sacrificing anything of moral importance

Singer’s radical (extreme) conclusion

Affluent people ought – morally – to donate their money to charity

Objection 1

There is a morally relevant difference— people in extreme poverty are really far away from us

Objection 2

There is a morally relevant difference— If everyone gave, we would only have to give a little bit.

Objection 3

There is a morally relevant difference— saving one person is different, what if we have to save a lot of people?

Objection 4

There is a morally relevant difference— we’re not certain whether charitable donations are actually effective.

Singer’s reply to objections

change the thought-experiment

Moral Duty

implies that one ought to do X; must do X if one wants to act morally

Charity

donating money to alleviate suffering is typically perceived as an act of

charity; an over the top not necessary thing

Singer argues what?

we have a duty to give

According to Singer, how much are we obligated to give?

to the point of marginal utility; your happiness and well-being are not special regarding the rest of the world.

Marginal utility

the level at which giving would cause you to be just as badly off as the

person you are helping.

The logic of effective altruism

we should do the most good that we can; focus on where money makes the most impact

Features of EA

focuses on making a difference, gives a meaning to your life, tests the question: can reason play a role in how we live?

What makes someone affluent?

They have enough income to meet their needs, can make reasonable provision for the future, and are spending money on things that aren’t really necessary

Cottom’s Objection to EA

poor people make bad decisions because it is a survival strategy

EA Problem 1

recommendations where to donate money are always factually checked and don’t consider context

EA Problem 2

is money the actual problem, or are we just treating the symptom not the cause?

Rubenstein’s objection to EA

EA excludes the people they are trying to save, donators are centered as “saviors”

The drone program of altruism

Killing at a distance, indirectly, with a drone, seems more sinister than killing directly. The killer kills without risk, and the target has no chance to defend himself, and it reduces the target to abstraction. It is more brutal in a deeper way.

MacFarquhar’s objection to EA

a consequence of EA is the suppression of emotional connection

Deaton’s objection to EA

global poverty is not a money problem, it is a political and institutional problem