Return to Answer

It is a powerful analogy, but even without Singer's reminder, it is one many of us already subconsciously intuit or consciously consider and ignore. Many of us using this site likely have what we call 'disposable' income; that is, we not only have an income which satisfies not only our immediate and future needs (in the form of superannuation perhaps, or retirement savings), but enough cash to buy take-away coffee instead of making our own. Enough cash, perhaps, to buy alcohol and cigarettes, to visit cinemas, go on holiday, consult psychics. Some of us have a holiday home. Many of us buy unnecessarily fine/expensive clothes and food, unnecessary quantities of clothing and food. Some of us even gamble money at odds which make us certain, in the long run, to lose. (I do not diminish addiction to substances/gaming here. I'm referring to those who are not medically compelled to indulge).

1. Given there are reputable, proven, independently-rated charities via which we can demonstrably provide for the wellbeing of people who are truly destitute,

2. Given that we have the means to donate to such charities far more than we already do,

3. We are failing to pursue an ideal of fairness intrinsic to what most of us would consider our morality, and in so doing...

4. Are contributing to the ongoing, preventable death, disease and sadness of many people we have the capacity to help in transformative ways.

It is a powerful analogy, but even without Singer's reminder, it is one many of us already subconsciously intuit or consciously consider and ignore. Many of us using this site likely have what we call 'disposable' income; that is, we not only have an income which satisfies not only our immediate and future needs (in the form of superannuation perhaps, or retirement savings), but enough cash to buy take-away coffee instead of making our own. Enough cash, perhaps, to buy alcohol and cigarettes, to visit cinemas, go on holiday, improve our homes. Some of us have a holiday home and/or investment properties. Many of us buy unnecessarily fine/expensive clothes and food, unnecessary quantities of clothing and food. Some of us even gamble money at odds which we know ensure we will in the long run be certain to lose. (I do not diminish addiction to substances/gaming here. I'm referring to those who are not medically compelled to indulge).

1. Given there are reputable, proven, independently-rated charities via which we can demonstrably provide for the wellbeing of people who are truly destitute,

2. Given that we have the means to donate to such charities far more than we already do,

3. Are contributing - via neglect - to the ongoing, preventable death, disease and sadness of many people we have the capacity to help in transformative ways.

4. In doing so, we are failing to pursue an ideal of fairness intrinsic to what our own moral code or compass.

Let's modify your question slightly, so that we address a situation in which so many not only don't have access to education, but to the bare minimum required to live what most of us in privileged communities would consider a dignified life, free from hunger and preventable disease. We should do this because it better delves the true importance of Singer's work and more thoroughly exposes the ramifications of our behaviour.

Let's modify your question slightly, so that we address the situation in which children not only lack access to education, but to the bare minimum standards of what most of us in privileged communities would consider a dignified life. We should do this because it better delves the true importance of Singer's work and more thoroughly exposes the ramifications of our behaviour. With this in mind:

This is a stark disparity; a disparity that we nonetheless ignore or fail to adequately or 'fairly' address given our own relative wealth.

Singer employs the analogy of a child drowning in a puddle and asks why - if we would be willing to ruin a pair of fine shoes by wading into the puddle to save the child - we are more often than not unmotivated to spend the same as that ruined pair of shoes on a charity providing for children whose suffering takes place further away from us (or maybe just around the corner), in circumstances from which we, by sheer good fortune, have been spared.

It is a powerful analogy, but even without Singer's reminder, it is one many of us already subconsciously intuit or consciously consider and ignore. Many of us using this site likely have what we call 'disposable income; that is, we not only have an income which satisfies not only our immediate and future needs (in the form of superannuation perhaps, or retirement savings), but enough cash to buy take-away coffee instead of making our own. Enough cash, perhaps, to buy alcohol and cigarettes, to visit cinemas, go on holiday, consult psychics. Some of us have a holiday home. Many of us buy unnecessarily fine/expensive clothes and food, unnecessary quantities of clothing and food. Some of us even gamble money at odds which make us certain, in the long run, to lose. (I do not diminish addiction to substances/gaming here. I'm referring to those who are not medically compelled to indulge).

It seems that regardless of what philosophical manoeuvres we are capable of making, it is difficult to deny that for those of us who subscribe to an ideal of fairness, that:

1. Given there are reputable, proven, independently-rated charities via which we can demonstrably provide for the wellbeing of people who are truly destitute,

2. Given that we have the means to donate to such charities far more than we already do,

3. We are failing to pursue an ideal of fairness intrinsic to our belief in fairness; to a core attribute of what most of us would consider a fundamental moral framework, and in so doing...

4. Are contributing to the ongoing, preventable death, disease and sadness of many people we have the capacity to help in transformative ways.

Few would argue that a person is immoral in providing for their own. It is when we have the means to provide for our own and for others yet fail do do so that we should recognise in ourselves an internal inconsistency which might reasonably be deemed 'immorality'. It would be interesting to know how many of us in such a situation (without the context of this scenario) would confess to such immorality. We have an enormous self-interest in viewing ourselves as good people who do the right thing by others, for only then can we reasonably expect similar courtesy in return.

This is a stark disparity; a disparity that we ignore or fail to adequately address despite our own relative wealth.

Singer employs the analogy of a child drowning in a puddle and asks why - if we would be willing to ruin a pair of fine shoes by wading into the puddle to save the child - we are more often than not unmotivated to spend the same money as we would replacing the ruined pair of shoes on a charity providing for children who suffer in circumstances we, by sheer good fortune, have been spared.

It is a powerful analogy, but even without Singer's reminder, it is one many of us already subconsciously intuit or consciously consider and ignore. Many of us using this site likely have what we call 'disposable' income; that is, we not only have an income which satisfies not only our immediate and future needs (in the form of superannuation perhaps, or retirement savings), but enough cash to buy take-away coffee instead of making our own. Enough cash, perhaps, to buy alcohol and cigarettes, to visit cinemas, go on holiday, consult psychics. Some of us have a holiday home. Many of us buy unnecessarily fine/expensive clothes and food, unnecessary quantities of clothing and food. Some of us even gamble money at odds which make us certain, in the long run, to lose. (I do not diminish addiction to substances/gaming here. I'm referring to those who are not medically compelled to indulge).

It seems that regardless of what philosophical manoeuvres we are capable of making, it is difficult to deny that for those of us who subscribe to an ideal of fairness:

1. Given there are reputable, proven, independently-rated charities via which we can demonstrably provide for the wellbeing of people who are truly destitute,

2. Given that we have the means to donate to such charities far more than we already do,

3. We are failing to pursue an ideal of fairness intrinsic to what most of us would consider our morality, and in so doing...

4. Are contributing to the ongoing, preventable death, disease and sadness of many people we have the capacity to help in transformative ways.

Few would argue that a person is immoral in providing for their own. It is when we have the means to provide for our own and for others yet fail do do so that we should recognise in ourselves an internal inconsistency which might reasonably be deemed 'immorality'. It would be interesting to know how many of us in such a situation might confess to such immorality. We have enormous self-interest in viewing ourselves as good people who do the right thing by others, for only then can we reasonably expect similar courtesy in return.