Utilitarian ethicist Peter Singer writes that affluent people such as those in the West should help those who are less fortunate, such as those who are afflicted by famine. He outlines his position in a simple argument:
- Suffering is bad
- If we can prevent bad, then we should prevent bad
- Therefore we should give all/most of our disposable income to those who are suffering
We assume that suffering is bad. That seems rather obvious.
The developments of modern times have facilitated our being able to prevent bad, such as famine in a country that is thousands of miles away. While people in the past were separated by vast oceans and lack of communication, it is now much easier to gain access or information all over the world, so distance is not a major factor inhibiting our being able to help those who are suffering.
Also, whether or not other people are giving to help those who are suffering is irrelevant. If one can prevent bad, then one should prevent bad, regardless of others choose to do.
That sums up Singer's position. He says that charity is not
supererogatory (good to do but not bad not to do), but is a moral obligation. And thus, we ought to give our disposable income, the money/resources that we can give, to help the suffering.
This seems like a reasonable position. Certainly, it is prima facie condemnable to go spend five hundred dollars on a Gucci purse when that money could feed a few families for Thanksgiving. It also seems bad to spend one billion dollars on a fighter plane when all that money could be spent for famine relief and population control.
But if this position is the right one, and giving is what we ought to do, why do so many of us not do it? Do we realize what we are doing and consciously commit a wrong? Some feel genuinely guilty about not giving. But for many, the main problem in applying Singer's conclusion is in determining what they "can" do to prevent bad.
For these people, it may be the case that they feel they simply "cannot" part with any of their income. While we may label that income spent of putatively frivolous items as disposable, they may view it as essential. It is here that they are being rather selfish.
Do I donate my disposable income? Well, as a student, I do not have any. But if I did have it, I fear that even I, the one presenting Singer's position to you, would not. The notion that I decide what I do with my money still rings in my ears. But I also keep in mind that giving should be choice regardless. Yes, it may a choice that we obligated to make, but we would still choose what to do with our money. That is, we would do the good.