The Life You Can Save

[clayto]

The Life You Can Save

Leading Humanist philosopher Peter Singer has just published a book which is more than a book, it is an attempt to change the culture of how we view contributing to charities which fight world poverty. The book is accompanied by a campaigning website, forums and blogs at http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/index.html. The website includes an online calculator to show how much you should be contributing if poverty is to be defeated.

In his Times Online Review Humanist philosopher A.C. Grayling says of Singer: "His book has a thoroughly practical purpose: to persuade people that it is wrong not to give charitably - wrong, note. We all know that it is good to give, but his point is that it is positively wrong not to - and to show by a snowstorm of facts and figures how much we should give if we are to take this obligation seriously." http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 943875.ece

Chris

[Lifelinking]

Thanks for the link Chris. This is something Singer has already said in earlier work so it will be interesting to see how he has expanded on it.

[tubataxidriver]

A worthy cause and objective, and with a clear moral base, but not a solution to the real problem, in my view. His proposal could speed up catastrophic damage to the biosphere through even more rapid population expansion and non-renewable resource consumption. Yes, the current situation is iniquitous, but we have to sort out the population and resource balance first otherwise we are all doomed in the long term. We need to depopulate by a factor of three to four in most areas of the world in order to become sustainable.

[Nick]

Judging by his previous work, the reviews I have seen and his apparent lack of economic knowledge, I doubt he will have anything very useful to say. For a start, as the father of three he has contributed more to the 'destruction' of this world than I have. And I trust no-one will buy his book but do something more useful for the third world with it.

Yeah, a pretty jaundiced view, but others' enthusiasm for Singer has that effect on people. There's a lesson for us all there.

[clayto]

"--- others' enthusiasm for Singer has that effect on people." What 'people' are these I wonder? I know he has enthusiastic support from such 'people' as A. C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins and many lesser folk, including presumably some of those who voted him Australia's 'Humanist of the Year'.

I know of some Vegans and some Animal Liberationists (he actually popularised the term) who think he is not 'veggi' enough for them because he proposes moderate rational action; and I have encountered some Christians like the Rev.David Robertson ('The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths') who set out to misrepresent him ---- but the only other 'people' who I encounter with a 'jaundiced' view of his work are a couple of 'jaundiced' (not my term) individuals here!

Chris

[Emma Woolgatherer]

A worthy cause and objective, and with a clear moral base, but not a solution to the real problem, in my view. His proposal could speed up catastrophic damage to the biosphere through even more rapid population expansion and non-renewable resource consumption. Yes, the current situation is iniquitous, but we have to sort out the population and resource balance first otherwise we are all doomed in the long term. We need to depopulate by a factor of three to four in most areas of the world in order to become sustainable.

And how would we do that? And what do you mean by "depopulate"?

Many people argue that the most effective way of reducing population growth is through improving education, especially education of girls, and improving healthcare, especially healthcare provision for women. Many development charities focus their efforts on precisely those things. So if we in the developed world gave more of our money to those development charities, we could be helping to reduce population growth. And if we were giving more of our money away, then presumably we would be spending less of it on non-renewable resource consumption. And we're the ones that are consuming more than our fair share of non-renewable resources in the first place.

Emma

P.S. See Singer talking about population here.

[Alan C.]

Nick
For a start, as the father of three he has contributed more to the 'destruction' of this world than I have.

I'm with you on that one Nick, I haven't added to the overpopulation of planet Earth either.
The Chinese have the right idea. Pity about the Catholics and the Muslims.

[Lifelinking]

Many people argue that the most effective way of reducing population growth is through improving education, especially education of girls, and improving healthcare, especially healthcare provision for women

I agree with this Emma. Although of course it depends on who is doing the 'educating'. The nonsense that bodies such as the Catholic Church spout about procreation and contraception is terribly damaging and causes untold suffering.

Judging by his previous work, the reviews I have seen and his apparent lack of economic knowledge, I doubt he will have anything very useful to say.

Nick, If I may ask, have you read any work by Singer or are you relying on the reviews you speak of?

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Yeah, a pretty jaundiced view, but others' enthusiasm for Singer has that effect on people. There's a lesson for us all there.

It works the other way, too. At university, three of my lecturers discussed Singer's views (in one case crudely misrepresenting them), and all three made it clear that they despised him. I found myself constantly defending Singer, even though I don't always agree with him and I no longer consider myself to be a utilitarian, because they were conveying to the other students, none of whom had read any Singer, that he was some kind of moral monster. Singer is controversial and provocative and brutally honest. His views on euthanasia, especially non-voluntary euthanasia, and infanticide shock and anger many people, and that's not surprising. But the reaction has always been disproportionate. He has received death threats. He has been called a sociopath, a Nazi, a demon-driven lunatic, the most dangerous man in the world today. Clearly, he is none of those things. He's a kind, gentle, compassionate man [---][/---] though he's no paragon of virtue or consistency. And he does have a lot to say that is extremely useful. Anyway, I wasn't planning to buy the book, but Nick's comment about trusting that "no-one will buy his book but do something more useful for the third world with it" has riled me sufficiently to make me buy it and read it out of pure contrariness! There's a lesson for all of us there.

Emma

[Lifelinking]

[Alan C.]

You are a one Emma

[Nick]

Anyway, I wasn't planning to buy the book, but Nick's comment about trusting that "no-one will buy his book but do something more useful for the third world with it" has riled me sufficiently to make me buy it and read it out of pure contrariness! There's a lesson for all of us there.

Emma

Thank goodness for that! It'll save me reading it!

[Nick]

A worthy cause and objective, and with a clear moral base, but not a solution to the real problem, in my view. His proposal could speed up catastrophic damage to the biosphere through even more rapid population expansion and non-renewable resource consumption. Yes, the current situation is iniquitous, but we have to sort out the population and resource balance first otherwise we are all doomed in the long term. We need to depopulate by a factor of three to four in most areas of the world in order to become sustainable.

And how would we do that? And what do you mean by "depopulate"?

I'll leave that for TubaTD to reply first.

Many people argue that the most effective way of reducing population growth is through improving education, especially education of girls, and improving healthcare, especially healthcare provision for women. Many development charities focus their efforts on precisely those things.

I very much agree with this, and discussed this in my scribblings about my 50th, which, good grief, is just about a year ago.

So if we in the developed world gave more of our money to those development charities, we could be helping to reduce population growth.

So long as we understand that this alone will not bring about solutions except in the very long run. And as Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead."

And if we were giving more of our money away, then presumably we would be spending less of it on non-renewable resource consumption.

I think this is unlikely. To give money away would bring about a reduction in the money supply in the first world, and a reduction in interest rates to stimulate the economy, while possibly causing inflation in the 3rd world.. And the money received may just disappear into Swiss bank accounts. It's a complicated business, this world-saving y'know.

And we're the ones that are consuming more than our fair share of non-renewable resources in the first place.

Reducing our consumption of raw materials and maintaining employment and human happiness is a huge question which deserves a separate thread.

P.S. See Singer talking about population here.

Having snapped the flex of my earphones, though I have replaced them, I can't hear a damn thing, so I'll have to come back to this.

[Nick]

"--- others' enthusiasm for Singer has that effect on people." What 'people' are these I wonder? I know he has enthusiastic support from such 'people' as A. C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins and many lesser folk, including presumably some of those who voted him Australia's 'Humanist of the Year'.

I know of some Vegans and some Animal Liberationists (he actually popularised the term) who think he is not 'veggi' enough for them because he proposes moderate rational action; and I have encountered some Christians like the Rev.David Robertson ('The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths') who set out to misrepresent him ---- but the only other 'people' who I encounter with a 'jaundiced' view of his work are a couple of 'jaundiced' (not my term) individuals here!

Chris

Just because Dawkins and Grayling has had some nice things to say about him, doesn't make him right. As Emma has pointed out, there are plenty of people who think he's the devil incarnate. While all the while he may be a nice guy....

[Nick]

I thought I was losing the plot for a few minutes. Then I discovered Maria had moved it! I'm not going mad after all.


Careful!

Nick, If I may ask, have you read any work by Singer or are you relying on the reviews you speak of?

That's a fair question, Lifey. I have read some extracts from his work and from that think his logic on certain issues is fatally flawed. I have also read reviews of his work and think some of his views, in particular the killing of disabled children, is morally, as well as logically, flawed. And some of my conclusions have been arrived at based on his own publicity.

I am also aware that, as Emma has said, his views have drawn great hostility, (and thank you Emma, for pointing up his questionable human virtue and variable consistency). Maybe we should start with his children......

Though my conclusions are, of course, open to challenge, it is legitimate to draw conclusions from comparatively meagre reading and limited knowledge in one's search for understanding. Or are all you non-economists going to withhold judgement on the credit crunch?

No? I thought not. Fair enough, my conclusions are not cast in stone, and are capable of change, but for now, this is where I stand.

[Lifelinking]

Thanks for clarifying Nick.

Its nice to see somebody else that talks to themself

Or are all you non-economists going to withhold judgement on the credit crunch?

No? I thought not.

[Nick]

Yay! My headphones now work!

I've just listened to Singer on population growth. Nothing controversial there, though it scarcely represent all his thinking on the subject.

[clayto]

Nick says of Singer "there are plenty of people who think he's the devil incarnate". My experience, limited as it is so far although I have read some of his books, is that for the most part 'people who think he is the devil incarnate' are either people who actually do believe in the devil or people (for example among the disabled) who have been misled by people who believe in the devil.

They are not humanists / rationalist who have given serious attention to what Singer actually says. Many / most (I have no basis for saying all) are the people who on religious grounds oppose abortion and euthanasia, and an open questioning approach to issues of medical ethics, etc. --- which most Humanists support (as I do as a member of Dignity in Dying); and people who use misrepresentation, lies and calumny (such as accusations of Nazism and eugenics) rather than reasoned debate.

Singer suffers in the same way as Dawkins in this and they both do so because of their effectiveness and honesty (for example in admitting their own inconsistencies and uncertainties.) I have often found myself defending Dawkins not only among anti-humanists but also even among Humanists who have been misled into believing things like 'he claims all war is caused by religion and thinks paedophilia is OK' (neither true of course) --- despite the fact that I disagree with Dawkins on some fundamentals (as an agnostic, rather than an atheist, doubtful about his 'reductionist ultra-Darwinism' (as recently described on TV).

"Maybe we should start with his children......". What is this prejudice against someone with three children? It is nothing to do with Humanism or with any reasoned argument about Singer's work is it?

Chris

[Nick]

Nick says of Singer "there are plenty of people who think he's the devil incarnate". My experience, limited as it is so far although I have read some of his books, is that for the most part 'people who think he is the devil incarnate' are either people who actually do believe in the devil or people (for example among the disabled) who have been misled by people who believe in the devil.

I didn't mean "the devil" in any literal sense, Chris, but I disagree with your apparent proposition that the only reason why anyone may disagree with Singer is because they have misunderstood him.

I know this is only Wiki, but the quotes are referenced:

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood — "rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[27] — and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[28]

What have I misunderstood?

They are not humanists / rationalist who have given serious attention to what Singer actually says.

That would include you, wouldn't it Chris? OK just being mischievous. I don't suppose you meant it in that sense, did you?

They are not humanists / rationalist who have given serious attention to what Singer actually says. Many / most (I have no basis for saying all) are the people who on religious grounds oppose abortion and euthanasia, and an open questioning approach to issues of medical ethics, etc. --- which most Humanists support (as I do as a member of Dignity in Dying); and people who use misrepresentation, lies and calumny (such as accusations of Nazism and eugenics) rather than reasoned debate.

Ahem! As a humanist, I give serious attention to Singer, up to the point that I disagree with him. As you yourself know there are only 24 hours in the day and I'd rather be doing other things than continue to read arguments I consider flawed. I also think it is perfectly OK for a humanist to oppose abortion and euthanasia. Such an opinion does not, of itself, disqualify anyone from being a humanist.

Singer suffers in the same way as Dawkins in this and they both do so because of their effectiveness and honesty (for example in admitting their own inconsistencies and uncertainties.) I have often found myself defending Dawkins not only among anti-humanists but also even among Humanists who have been misled into believing things like 'he claims all war is caused by religion and thinks paedophilia is OK' (neither true of course) --- despite the fact that I disagree with Dawkins on some fundamentals (as an agnostic, rather than an atheist, doubtful about his 'reductionist ultra-Darwinism' (as recently described on TV).

Yeah, that's probably true, but it doesn't mean Singer is right.

"Maybe we should start with his children......". What is this prejudice against someone with three children? It is nothing to do with Humanism or with any reasoned argument about Singer's work is it?

No prejudice, Chris. It's just an example of how different people can think about the world and its problems. The effects on the earth of over-population are open to humanists to comment on and have as much, or as little, to do with humanism as veggiedom. My point about his children (not obvious, on reflection) is that (some? most?) parents of severely disabled children love them as dearly as I expect Singer loves his. Therefore for him to question their right to life is extremely offensive to such people, as questioning his children's right to life would be to him. Nor does their view of life necessarily depend on them being faith-heads.

[grammar king]

Maybe I'm just being a bit left here, but I've always thought charity was like giving an aspirin to someone with cancer. It keeps the system ticking over, makes people in developed countries feel like they're doing something when in reality many of the consumer decisions they make on a day to day basis cripple the poor.

Surely the state should be doing this, rather than relying on the actions of a few good-hearted people. The system itself needs to change, rather than trying to solve its inherent problems within itself.

But, in the absense of those kind of changes coming about, I see no other option.