Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



2/23/2016 7:28 am  #1


Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

What would the natural law theorist say about Singer's Famine Relief argument or Effective Altruism in general? 

I recently came across an article at Aeon arguing that art is a waste of time using Singer's argument. See here: https://aeon.co/essays/art-is-a-waste-of-time-or-so-effective-altruism-claims

I think Singer's argument is quite strong, but as an artist, I find the article's conclusion highly unsatisfactory, to say the least. Any thoughts on this would be helpful.

Best,

ML


 

 

2/24/2016 11:28 pm  #2


Re: Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

If Singer's argument is the one presented in that article, I struggle to see how it is a good one. It seems to say that we should be spend as much of our time and effort helping others as possible, mostly materially. This seems to imply that the only virtue, or at least the only one worth worrying about whilst others suffer, is to help people in this way. If you hold a different vision of virtue or the good (like most traditional moral and religious traditions), then this argument is not compelling.

 

2/25/2016 10:27 am  #3


Re: Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

If Singer's argument is the one presented in that article, I struggle to see how it is a good one. It seems to say that we should be spend as much of our time and effort helping others as possible, mostly materially. This seems to imply that the only virtue, or at least the only one worth worrying about whilst others suffer, is to help people in this way. If you hold a different vision of virtue or the good (like most traditional moral and religious traditions), then this argument is not compelling.

Well, to defend Singer a bit: What if in some social circumstances it is appropriate to exercise only or primarily one virtue? His favored analogy is the child drowning in the lake. You would need a very good reason not to stop what you are doing to save the child, even though there are some mild costs to you (getting wet, inconvenient, takes some time, breaking off some engagement, etc.).  Prudence is the master virtue, and if you were in a circumstance where you saw child after child drowning in a lake, prudence (it seems) would tell you to save them all, even though this prevents you from other pursuits that might be relevant to other virtues.

 

2/25/2016 5:47 pm  #4


Re: Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

But doesn't that situation get whatever plausibility it has from its one-off, special status?

Otherwise, let us say we can see the health of the souls of others and ourselves. Then let us suppose, alongside child after child drowning in the lake, we meet person after person walking along the bank  in great moral danger that we can aid. And suppose we also see that we have much work to do on our own failings (perhaps the most important issue - after all, we are in the end responsible only own souls). I don't see why, in such circumstances, we must concentrate only on those drowning. Certainly, to say we should does seem to imply a particular and controversial view of the good and of what man's place in the world is. ​

Is prudence the master virtue? Or is to be Christ-like and to know God?

 

2/25/2016 7:04 pm  #5


Re: Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

I agree with you re prudence, though for a different reason. What was traditionally translated as prudentia was Aristotle's ϕρονησιϛ, which is something like insight or skillful/wise dealing in the world. It doesn't at all seem to me that ϕρονησιϛ would require the total abandonment of all the goods of life for the sake of helping others.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

2/25/2016 7:25 pm  #6


Re: Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Then let us suppose, alongside child after child drowning in the lake, we meet person after person walking along the bank someone in great moral danger that we can aid. And suppose we also see that we have much work to do on our own failings (perhaps the most important issue - after all, we are in the end responsible only own souls). I don't see why, in such circumstances, we must concentrate only on those drowning. Certainly, to say we should does seem to imply a particular and controversial view of the good and of what man's place in the world is.

Well, I think when the other goods at stake are particularly pressing, the case does change, which is why the goods at stake in Singer's example are stipulated to be unremarkable ones. He admits that as you risk more in helping the child, you have less reason to do so. But he thinks that what most people in the West risk in giving some large chunk of their income to charity is not as good as the good of the people they would be helping.

I think the goods at stake have to be pretty significant if you are to avoid jumping in the water to save the child. Sure, I might have some moral failings that I should work on, but by focusing on them now I might be adding to them "leaving child to die in the lake when it would have been easy to save him".

I do think that Singer's argument comes apart, though I don't really see the problem being with the child in the lake. He wants to present the argument at a level of generality detached from utilitarianism, but we can ask what the significance of the falsity of utilitarianism is for the argument.

iwpoe wrote:

I agree with you re prudence, though for a different reason. What was traditionally translated as prudentia was Aristotle's ϕρονησιϛ, which is something like insight or skillful/wise dealing in the world. It doesn't at all seem to me that ϕρονησιϛ would require the total abandonment of all the goods of life for the sake of helping others.

This is the sense in which I intend "prudence". (My post wouldn't make much sense if it were read in the modern homo economicus sense.)

I agree, I don't think prudence requires abandoning all the goods of life, and I don't think the extension of the child-in-the-lake case extends as neatly as needed to effective altruism. But it does seem to me one could be confronted with (say) a number of drowning children, and prudence might dictate that you save them until you're exhausted. For Aristotle, prudence and the moral virtues are mutually entailing, so the question is just whether, in deciding to leave the children to drown, one would be doing anything unvirtuous. Obviously one could stipulate that the competing goods are more important (say your own child's life is at risk), but it doesn't seem to me like the typical goods of ordinary life are in competition here, when the drowning child is so immediate.

 

2/25/2016 7:41 pm  #7


Re: Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

Greg wrote:

I think the goods at stake have to be pretty significant if you are to avoid jumping in the water to save the child. Sure, I might have some moral failings that I should work on, but by focusing on them now I might be adding to them "leaving child to die in the lake when it would have been easy to save him".

In terms of a one-off incident, certainly. But if you could focus on nothing else in life, then that would distract from all other moral and spiritual duties, to yourself and others. If Singer's point is correct then it would follow that helping others in this way is the overwhelming good for man.

 ​I wonder also whom Singer has in mind, when he talks about giving money to them. Certainly, there are those starving, but often this has more to do with corrupt governments, the seizure of good land by colonial and post-colonial landowners for use in producing cash crops for export, and that sort of thing, than just a lack of money. 

Otherwise, does he have in mind simply poor people? It may be easy for a Westerner to say (I'm poor, but it is the poverty of one who has just finished his studies), but poverty alone is no barrier to a moral or even a happy life. If he is talking about poverty as a whole, then his point seems even more questionable.
 

 

2/25/2016 8:15 pm  #8


Re: Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

​I wonder also whom Singer has in mind, when he talks about giving money to them

Here is Singer's Famine, Affluence, and Morality, for the original context of the argument.

 

2/25/2016 11:16 pm  #9


Re: Singer's Famine Relief Argument, Effective Altruism, And Art

He's made more popular arguments recently as well. A lot of the book is not philosophical argument but discusses which charities are most effective to give to.

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum