Donating money to those who are less fortunate is a noble endeavor. However, questions of charity should be left entirely to personal choice, and not dictated by a pseudo-scientific branch of philosophy.
Utilitarianism is based on the notion that "happiness" is the universal "good", and that the moral duty of humanity is to maximize this "good". This, to me, is already problematic, because there could hardly exist a single definition of "good" or "happiness" on which every culture or individual could agree. Often, utilitarian philosophers like Singer speak about "happiness" in quantifiable terms, emphasizing the practical application of their thought experiments in calculating choices that will produce the greatest amount of "good". Singer even somehow calculates the morally satisfactory amount of money that should be donated to charities down to a cent. He claims to base his calculations on a certain standard of need. However, who is to define where on Maslow's pyramid of needs the line should be drawn? Is it the need for safety, esteem, or self-actualization? If it is the latter, I doubt that $30,000 per household will suffice.
However, if Singer claims to, unlike most of us, know the one-size-fits-all level of human need, it would be more logical for him to advocate for a totalitarian rule of experts who could dictate the wealth limit, leading the misguided public that erroneously refuses to live on the poverty line. After all, from a purely utilitarian perspective, redistribution of wealth seems like a much more effective measure to create maximum happiness than sporadic and limited personal charity contributions. In Singer's logic, those who would be forced to give up their surplus capital should not feel unhappy, because they would still have the money to cover their basic needs, and those, who would receive their money, would become happier. So until Singer proves his commitment to the poor naked wretches of the world by staging a communist coup, his approach to utilitarianism will remain half-hearted and unconvincing.
I like your tie-in to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs--since there's numerous needs asides from basic food and shelter, it's hard to tell where to draw the line. I think Singer's money calculation is also questionable. His argument seemed to turn pretty socialist the more I kept reading, and socialism has some morally questionable facets about it, too.
ReplyDelete