Singer addresses the obligation of the well-off to the world's poor. Rather than a time-consuming global redistribution of wealth and income, Singer suggests perhaps a faster and more practical alternative-- each individual should donate 1/5 of their annual income to charity. Not only should each individual donate their surpluses, but each individual should feel morally obligated to do such. Although such a harsh instillation of the way a person should manage their life kind of bothers me, I think it's mostly because it makes me feel defensive and guilty about my consumption.
A major flaw I see in Singer's philosophy though, is that he doesn't make a clear distinction between necessity, convenience and luxury. Does convenience play a role in necessity? Singer would probably answer that it doesn't, but people have a hard time drawing that line. If he had made that more clear, I think we would have an easier and less defensive time rethinking our consumption.
He also doesn't point out any moral motivation to accompany the moral obligation. Without putting a value to the obligation, it seems distant and hard to relate to. All Singer gives us is his own detached perspective. He points out no moral motivating factor that would push all well-off humans to donate everything beyond necessity.
These flaws are beginning to feel like excuses for not giving. I think I'll have to come back to Singer, when I actually have an annual income or a family to support or anything that might intensify my feelings towards these charitable "burdens." In the meantime, socialism seems to be gaining the interest and support of Americans, especially with Bernie Sanders running for President. It will be interesting to see if the government takes action before individual citizens do.
No comments:
Post a Comment