The Life You can Save
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
The Life You can Save
In the book The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer argues that there is no moral difference between a child in front of you and one in some far off land. If you would save the nearby child, he reasons, you have to save the distant one too. He put his money where his mouth is, and started a program to help people donate to charities that do the most good.
There are counter-arguments of course. Most of them rely on the knowledge that a drowning child is in a different sort of situation than a child who is starving and that they require different solutions which impose different obligations.
Does this seem likely to cause some form of ripple effect that can have a deep impact on the world or that the very least, you?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: The Life You can Save
I disagree. Charity begins at home. Local problems are known best by locals and thus are most efficiently solved by locals. Complex issues typically have nuanced differences impacted by cultural norms that are poorly understood by outsiders.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2021, 3:00 am Question: If you are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there a fundamental difference between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world?
In the book The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer argues that there is no moral difference between a child in front of you and one in some far off land. If you would save the nearby child, he reasons, you have to save the distant one too. He put his money where his mouth is, and started a program to help people donate to charities that do the most good.
There are counter-arguments of course. Most of them rely on the knowledge that a drowning child is in a different sort of situation than a child who is starving and that they require different solutions which impose different obligations.
Does this seem likely to cause some form of ripple effect that can have a deep impact on the world or that the very least, you?
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: The Life You can Save
If I can see a child drowning in the pond in front of me, I know that I can probably make a difference, and I should act. If a child thousands of miles away is living in poverty that threatens his life, I don't know how well my response will make his situation better. There are usually political problems that trump any logistical problems in getting the aid where it will do good. In other words, we don't lack the will or the means to end world hunger, we lack the political will to end the corruption that is actually causing most of the trouble. Some of the corruption begins right here at home, and we could work on that (though we seldom do!), but the corruption abroad is much tougher to fight.
- thegoldbering
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: December 13th, 2021, 4:11 pm
Re: The Life You can Save
WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2021, 3:00 am Question: If you are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there a fundamental difference between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world?
In the book The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer argues that there is no moral difference between a child in front of you and one in some far off land. If you would save the nearby child, he reasons, you have to save the distant one too. He put his money where his mouth is, and started a program to help people donate to charities that do the most good.
There are counter-arguments of course. Most of them rely on the knowledge that a drowning child is in a different sort of situation than a child who is starving and that they require different solutions which impose different obligations.
Does this seem likely to cause some form of ripple effect that can have a deep impact on the world or that the very least, you?
In the first part of your question is the key part, "if you are obligated to save......" I don't feel obligated to save the life of a child if I don't see that said child is in need of saving, or what is more, I don't even know the existence of said child, whereas if I see a child "in front of me" that is in real (to my perception) need of saving yes, there is a fundamental difference. I'm not saying however that one should not for example donate "blindly" to charities that do the most effect to other persons in need, in those cases yes go ahead and help whenever you can, I'm just clarifying that to my POV, yes, there is a fundamental difference between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world.
- thegoldbering
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: December 13th, 2021, 4:11 pm
Re: The Life You can Save
LuckyR wrote: ↑December 13th, 2021, 5:19 amI disagree. Charity begins at home. Local problems are known best by locals and thus are most efficiently solved by locals. Complex issues typically have nuanced differences impacted by cultural norms that are poorly understood by outsiders.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2021, 3:00 am Question: If you are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there a fundamental difference between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world?
In the book The Life You Can Save, Peter Singer argues that there is no moral difference between a child in front of you and one in some far off land. If you would save the nearby child, he reasons, you have to save the distant one too. He put his money where his mouth is, and started a program to help people donate to charities that do the most good.
There are counter-arguments of course. Most of them rely on the knowledge that a drowning child is in a different sort of situation than a child who is starving and that they require different solutions which impose different obligations.
Does this seem likely to cause some form of ripple effect that can have a deep impact on the world or that the very least, you?
Good point, hadn't thought it that way and yes, local problems because things like culture and language, are better understood and therefore more likely to be resolved by locals then from someone (or an organization) that has no understanding of this.
- Raywallz21
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: December 14th, 2021, 2:05 am
Re: The Life You can Save
https://shrinke.me/Plato.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: The Life You can Save
Nobody is obligated to do anything, except by some other human being(s) who hold some kind of power over him.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑December 13th, 2021, 3:00 am Question: If you are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there a fundamental difference between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world?
Given the number of children abused, killed, sold, exploited, abandoned and neglected by adults of all kinds around the world and throughout history, it's obvious that there is no universal sense of obligation toward them.
Of course there is no fundamental difference between saving one or another child: the fundamental difference is between saving and harming.
The specific differences in which to save are matter of awareness, urgency, emotional involvement, proximity and inclination. That last one is booby-trapped with racial, religious and political attitudes.
If we cared about the welfare of children, we would organize the world quite differently.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023