One will always be cold, and one will be warm

Have you ever questioned the morality of your everyday choices? It can be quite the revelation when one comes to find that many of their everyday choices do not reflect the person they thought they were. We may simply be a product of the society we live in, but for those who take a step back and look at what their actions contribute to, we start to see the mess we have made.

According to a paper entitled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” written by Peter Singer, and published by Princeton University Press, most people are immoral due to their inaction towards giving to charity. Many philosophers have attempted to challenge Singer’s notion that people are evil, but Singer’s argument has caused many to see the world differently.

Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher renowned for his work in applied ethics, animal rights and effective altruism. Singer acquired a master's in philosophy from Melbourne following a bachelor’s of philosphy from Oxford.

Singer argues the affluent have the capacity to make a significant difference in the lives of the less fortunate. Singer’s paper strongly pushes the idea that many people in developed countries have spare wealth to give, and the refusal to specifically help people in Bengal is detestable. “I shall argue that the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way we look moral issues – our moral conceptual scheme – needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society.”

Singer’s argument seems silly at first. Most people don’t give to charity, yet many people that may not give to charity still mean well for others. Singer’s argument makes a lot more sense when you take a look at the four main claims that contribute to this idea.

Claim one states,“Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” This first point is an obvious conclusion that not many people would be able to argue. When you see people starving, becoming ill and dying, it is a widely natural reaction to think, “dang, this is bad.”

Claim two states,“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” This point is the most controversial of all of the claims. Singer assumes people will try and argue two points against this argument – people would have to make “too drastic a revision of our moral scheme,” and that if Singer’s claim was true, “We all ought, morally, to be working full time to increase the balance of happiness over misery.”

People might make the argument that the moral expectations of most wealthy countries never emphasize giving to charity, and the action of giving to charity can be seen as an unnecessary or even pretentious action.

When one is asked the question, “would you like to round up to the next dollar for the local children’s hospital,” the obvious answer is likely, “no thank you!” This is because of everything from the perceived pettiness of the mere cents that they would receive, to the fact that your parents never gave to charity and you are simply doing what you have been conditioned to do.

People might also make the argument that if I cause myself to suffer for little gain towards others, then there is no point in supporting the cause, because the total amount of misery in the world has not decreased.

If there were two people in the cold, and one were to sacrifice their coat to the other, the level of suffering would not decrease. The exchange of trading coats, no matter how many times it occurs, will not make a significant difference in the total amount of suffering, as one will always be cold, and one will always be warm.

Singer, however, claims that these arguments do not apply; societal norms should reflect basic morals, and people living in wealthy countries have wasteful habits and extra resources to spare.

If a society were to normalize eating live animals, would each person in that society be evil? The logical conclusion is that it is not the individual, but the moral values that they have been taught. Although the blame is no longer on the individual, the society as a whole is evil for supporting the behavior. If the people know the experience of pain is something that should be avoided, then the inaction against the societal norm would be negligence.

Most everyone has had the experience of buying something they did not need, such as a cookie from a local coffee shop. The action of buying the cookie will not bring lasting happiness, and the money used to buy the cookie would be life-saving to someone suffering in a foreign famine; therefore, the logical conclusion would be to support a cause of greater need.

Singer’s third claim is that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” This claim creates a reasonable boundary for how much one should give, stating we should give until we would increase the total amount of suffering by giving.

Singer’s final claim is that “if no one gives voluntarily, a government will assume it’s citizens are uninterested in famine relief and would not wish to be forced into giving aid,” which would mean that you can not blame the government for not giving the money to charity for you, as it would be immoral to force the majority of the population to have to pay more taxes for a charity that no one supports.

People should feel responsible for their everyday choices, and the society we live in should not hold the bar low enough to generalize a lack of concern for those in need. Donating even a small amount of wealth can make people’s lives livable again, and bring even just that much more happiness to the world. The more people start to donate, the more common donating will become and people will feel normal sparing small bills to charity. Trading simple pleasure for a true peace that comes from knowing that you helped someone today can be as easy as donating the money that you would have used to buy a cookie or new dress.

It is also important to reduce waste and attempt to save money for yourself so that you have the proper funding to donate to charity. By making food at home, buying items with less packaging and walking more often than driving, you help reduce your impact on the environment, which would reduce the amount of charity that needs to go towards it, and in the process, you save money, which can then go to other charities. The world can be rebuilt, even if just one drop of empathy at a time.