From a utilititarian viewpoint it doesn't make that much sense to think about the "obligatory" level of donation (or doing good in general). You could say that there's an obligation to do the thing that maximises happiness. Or you could say that there's an obligation to not maximise suffering. Or you could draw the line anywhere in between those two extremes. But where the line for what's considered obligatory is just an arbitrary deccision and not a moral fact according to utilitarianism. It's looking at something which is clearly continous as binary.
1) Nobody really knows the correct level of charitable giving to maximize "utility".
2) Charitable giving is likely subject to diminishing returns, like everything else.
3) The level and nature of charitable giving is you do is probably not going to be optimized, even if you try your best. This applies to EA people too.
4) It's probably easier and more efficient for society to have some rule of thumb that most people can follow as to their level of charitable giving. It reduces investment of each individual into figuring out what it should be, and it limits competitive social signaling spirals.
5) "Tithe 10% of your income to good works" has a really long tradition that appears to have worked for a long time. If you believe in diminishing returns of charity, 10% seems to pass the eyeball test to me as well.
7) The same logic above applies to most things, including immigration.
I saw the debate and I found Singer's positions sort of arbitrary. I am sure he's done a lot of good, and I don't dislike the man, but I was kind of expecting more of a debate. It was a nice conversation more than a debate. Which was fun too.
Perhaps this is a miss-perception on my part, but a philanthropist appears to be someone who is so wealthy that, after giving away large chunks of it, doesn't notice the loss, but is showered with public accolades. This isn't a hero.
Re: the hero question, as a psychologist, I find it hard to praise those who can make sacrifices without too much effort. Bryan mentioned he is not materialistic so giving away more money to EA charities causes less pain than it would for someone who likes material things. The same is true for many who can successfully reduce/eliminate animal product consumption--some just dislike meat/dairy, and others enjoy being nonconformist and sowing chaos at family dinners. I read Singer's Practical Ethics and was only able to sustain veganism for 3 months (and this was in the rather supportive environment of Boulder, CO). Am I am moral failure or is there more for me to overcome than the average vegan faces? Singer did not hide his distain for materialist people, so no doubt it's not hard for him to resist spending money on frivolous things. On another note, I'm also curious about how many EAs would do something like make a significant personal sacrifice without telling anyone? No doubt part of the appeal is being in the club of people who are extremely rational about their charity, and signaling this rationality + resources to give is important. But ultimately if what matters is doing the most good, then who cares. Skip the moral judgment and self-loathing and do what you can, and encourage others to as well.
Thanks, Bryan. I've read older Singer papers and interviews a few years ago, and didn't like his philosophy (even if his heart may have been in the right place). But your post will make me revisit him now.
Regardless if he has shifted from a more left(ist) position to center-left, I'd imagine his profound influence on all the nonprofits, left-leaning development economists, UN/World Bank/IMF, University "intellectuals", etc... are still based on the old-Singer and that influence will be quite an uphill battle to shift
Peter Singer has done more to make the world a better place than any other academic alive today. Even offsets the bad of any handful of white males pining for the days they ruled unquestioned.
10% makes sense as a general discipline - a minimal guideline that can be adopted across social classes, without undue hardship (at least in a rich country) or invidious comparisons. (A much higher standard level might give rise to that, as evinced by the unpleasantness at the end of a restaurant meal in the US: the upper-middle class person who leaves 20% will berate as "cheap" the person who left 15%-18%; the latter person is more likely to have read the menu from right to left (i.e. did not get what they really wanted because they are on a budget), be from a different part of the country, etc. A small consideration perhaps, but one that can affect how the movement is perceived.) One can simultaneously make that the guideline while aiming oneself for 20%, or believing that one should leave as much as one can. Or as much as one can while allowing oneself to buy a flat or house appropriate to one's use, say, as one will then not be forced to pay a large part of one's income to landlords, and can leave the house to charity upon one's death. But then the 10% guideline is really necessary, as otherwise people could easily lie to themselves: "I'll give 0% so that I can buy a house sooner, or because I really need a balcony, etc." - and then, once that is done, something else is sure to come up.
What do you think of the case for buying tabloid newspapers to stop them putting out scare stories any immigration? Or maybe a relentless focus on reducing bad news stories rather than reducing immigration.
I don't think he abandoned his view at all. He's being strategic. He knows most people would not find the extreme conclusion appealing. This is similar for a lot of his other arguments (summarized in Practical Ethics). Some of the implications of utilitarian reasoning are pretty strange and unpalatable, at least at first blush. I believe he's admitted to not living up to his own standard but aspires to. He's a remarkable man!
Bryan writes: "you get better utilitarian results by misstating the implications of utilitarianism," as though 'utilitarianism' per se has implications. That presupposition is flat-out wrong.
From a utilititarian viewpoint it doesn't make that much sense to think about the "obligatory" level of donation (or doing good in general). You could say that there's an obligation to do the thing that maximises happiness. Or you could say that there's an obligation to not maximise suffering. Or you could draw the line anywhere in between those two extremes. But where the line for what's considered obligatory is just an arbitrary deccision and not a moral fact according to utilitarianism. It's looking at something which is clearly continous as binary.
1) Nobody really knows the correct level of charitable giving to maximize "utility".
2) Charitable giving is likely subject to diminishing returns, like everything else.
3) The level and nature of charitable giving is you do is probably not going to be optimized, even if you try your best. This applies to EA people too.
4) It's probably easier and more efficient for society to have some rule of thumb that most people can follow as to their level of charitable giving. It reduces investment of each individual into figuring out what it should be, and it limits competitive social signaling spirals.
5) "Tithe 10% of your income to good works" has a really long tradition that appears to have worked for a long time. If you believe in diminishing returns of charity, 10% seems to pass the eyeball test to me as well.
7) The same logic above applies to most things, including immigration.
I saw the debate and I found Singer's positions sort of arbitrary. I am sure he's done a lot of good, and I don't dislike the man, but I was kind of expecting more of a debate. It was a nice conversation more than a debate. Which was fun too.
". . . . praise philanthropists as “heroes.”"
Perhaps this is a miss-perception on my part, but a philanthropist appears to be someone who is so wealthy that, after giving away large chunks of it, doesn't notice the loss, but is showered with public accolades. This isn't a hero.
Re: the hero question, as a psychologist, I find it hard to praise those who can make sacrifices without too much effort. Bryan mentioned he is not materialistic so giving away more money to EA charities causes less pain than it would for someone who likes material things. The same is true for many who can successfully reduce/eliminate animal product consumption--some just dislike meat/dairy, and others enjoy being nonconformist and sowing chaos at family dinners. I read Singer's Practical Ethics and was only able to sustain veganism for 3 months (and this was in the rather supportive environment of Boulder, CO). Am I am moral failure or is there more for me to overcome than the average vegan faces? Singer did not hide his distain for materialist people, so no doubt it's not hard for him to resist spending money on frivolous things. On another note, I'm also curious about how many EAs would do something like make a significant personal sacrifice without telling anyone? No doubt part of the appeal is being in the club of people who are extremely rational about their charity, and signaling this rationality + resources to give is important. But ultimately if what matters is doing the most good, then who cares. Skip the moral judgment and self-loathing and do what you can, and encourage others to as well.
Thanks, Bryan. I've read older Singer papers and interviews a few years ago, and didn't like his philosophy (even if his heart may have been in the right place). But your post will make me revisit him now.
Regardless if he has shifted from a more left(ist) position to center-left, I'd imagine his profound influence on all the nonprofits, left-leaning development economists, UN/World Bank/IMF, University "intellectuals", etc... are still based on the old-Singer and that influence will be quite an uphill battle to shift
Peter Singer has done more to make the world a better place than any other academic alive today. Even offsets the bad of any handful of white males pining for the days they ruled unquestioned.
10% makes sense as a general discipline - a minimal guideline that can be adopted across social classes, without undue hardship (at least in a rich country) or invidious comparisons. (A much higher standard level might give rise to that, as evinced by the unpleasantness at the end of a restaurant meal in the US: the upper-middle class person who leaves 20% will berate as "cheap" the person who left 15%-18%; the latter person is more likely to have read the menu from right to left (i.e. did not get what they really wanted because they are on a budget), be from a different part of the country, etc. A small consideration perhaps, but one that can affect how the movement is perceived.) One can simultaneously make that the guideline while aiming oneself for 20%, or believing that one should leave as much as one can. Or as much as one can while allowing oneself to buy a flat or house appropriate to one's use, say, as one will then not be forced to pay a large part of one's income to landlords, and can leave the house to charity upon one's death. But then the 10% guideline is really necessary, as otherwise people could easily lie to themselves: "I'll give 0% so that I can buy a house sooner, or because I really need a balcony, etc." - and then, once that is done, something else is sure to come up.
What do you think of the case for buying tabloid newspapers to stop them putting out scare stories any immigration? Or maybe a relentless focus on reducing bad news stories rather than reducing immigration.
I don't think he abandoned his view at all. He's being strategic. He knows most people would not find the extreme conclusion appealing. This is similar for a lot of his other arguments (summarized in Practical Ethics). Some of the implications of utilitarian reasoning are pretty strange and unpalatable, at least at first blush. I believe he's admitted to not living up to his own standard but aspires to. He's a remarkable man!
Bryan writes: "you get better utilitarian results by misstating the implications of utilitarianism," as though 'utilitarianism' per se has implications. That presupposition is flat-out wrong.