Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

icarusrising9 t1_itqg5jt wrote

Reply to comment by MrPezevenk in Peter Singer Is the Philosopher of the Status Quo by TuvixWasMurderedR1P

I dunno, he donates most of his income and seems to live as minimalist a life as he can. I don't think he makes it too easy on himself.

12

MrPezevenk t1_itqh2fw wrote

Me and you can't really know where he lives. But most people live a very "minimalist" life, except they don't chose to, and they have far more precarious jobs. Singer can chose what level of living he is happy with, stay there and be assured he will never be poor.

−6

punninglinguist t1_itqnl9s wrote

Isn't that kind of Singer's argument, though? That people who are well-off should choose to give away most of their assets in ways that benefit the poor.?

12

MrPezevenk t1_itqnthk wrote

I didn't say it isn't. I said it's kind of a cop out to say "hey well he puts his money where his mouth is, other people have it easy because they have cushy jobs". Yeah he does too, and he can put his money where his mouth is because of that. Most other people can't do that.

−2

Tinac4 t1_itqrkxy wrote

Sure, but he still goes further than 99.something% of people in his income bracket. 40% is a pretty substantial chunk of income even if he's making (say) 200k/year. As for why he doesn't donate more:

>"I just accept that I'm not a saint. There are people in my book who are better than I am, people who've donated a kidney to a stranger. I still have two kidneys. And I could certainly live more parsimoniously and donate more as a result."

>...

>"On the other hand, maybe it's the people like you who aren't giving – or who are working their way up to giving 1 per cent – who make me feel, 'Look, I'm not such a bad guy, I'm giving more than most.'"

6

MrPezevenk t1_itqyu46 wrote

Dude, I'm not saying he should be giving more or less or whatever. I'm saying that it's not an argument for one or the other thing. This percentage thing is also weird because if I make 100k per month and I give away 90%, I still live awesome. If I make 1k and give away 90%, I'm fucked. And what's more, the impact I make is 100 times smaller. If that's how we're judging people then rich people are the only ones who even have the luxury of being moral I guess.

2

Fumquat t1_itqwfsv wrote

Strange to think of it in percents, as if there isn’t, in the first world, a standard of living floor below which one requires rather than owes charity.

If I’ve lived on 10% of Singers net income, how can my better-or-less-than moral status then depend on how much more I earn that I then can give from? It doesn’t feel right as a calculation.

1

punninglinguist t1_itqysdf wrote

Singer's not posing his argument to most people, though. He's posing it to affluent people in developed countries. I think he'd agree with you that, say, a working class single mom, who sometimes has to choose between groceries and prescriptions, should not be expected to give away any wealth.

4

MrPezevenk t1_itqzboq wrote

Yes but I'm not talking about Singer, I'm talking about how people in this thread talk about Singer and his charity.

0

punninglinguist t1_itrd4zw wrote

It seemed clear to me from context that people were comparing Singer to other affluent westerners and/or other philosophers who write about inequality. Again, not to the sort who lack disposable assets.

3