Mr. Singer: What is the Worth of Life?
Last class we talked about Peter Singer, and the notion on whether it was better to grant more people sight or train one dog to help one person for the same amount of money. We talked about if it was better to grant wishes to dying children, or to split that money and save more lives with it. To allocate funds to an organization or cause that has the greatest efficiency or dollar to turn-out ratio will trump everything else according to Mr. Singer. Furthermore, disregarding the passionate side in favor of using logic and recognizing the human’s habits, such as our desire to more likely give to people we know, are core tenets of the effective altruistic ideology. Those championing the cause claim that saving “three lives is better than one,” while boasting a morality that remains attractive to the average person. How can one weigh the lives of three for the life of one? According to Mr. Singer, life remains to be the most cherished gift one can give another or own for his/herself, but what if that living may be worse than life itself? What is the worth of a man to the individual? Should our philanthropy adjust for these notions?
The Make-A-Wish Foundation exists as one of the last bastions for providing children of terminable or life-threatening illnesses a chance to enjoy their current life or condition. Peter Singer’s main gripe with the organization, is that the average “$7,500” spent could better be used for helping children dying of malaria. However, the Make-A-Wish Foundation provides a great service to society, as it provides a personal and passionate means to making a difference. It allows the individual, the source of all potential good by means of personal capital, the chance for individual expression, and to see their contribution first-hand make an impactful difference on the mental state of a child. What Singer does not account for is that life is not some abstract case study that fits into distinct categories. When asked in an interview if the healthcare dollars he had spent on his mother’s quality of life could have been better spent, Singer remarks “It is more difficult than I thought before, because it is my mother.” Is his mother’s life, on paper, worth more than another? To Mr. Singer, all life is equal, however clearly this is not true. It is emotion, and this personal state of being that humanity carries that will permanently influence one’s perception of the worth of life. There is no number crunching or logic that can change that idea, even for Mr. Singer.
Another interesting topic we mentioned in class was the idea of the museum and the evil demon. It is thought-provoking notion, but it too harks on a poorly constructed argument. I agree from an ideological standpoint that it truly is unfair that one must suffer for one thousand, but in the real world, the end justifies the means. Singer never accounts for the potential that one of those individuals could have a personal experience with the museum, and donate more money for the improvement of others or simply carry with himself, an attitude that benefits society in some beneficial way for the future. Could the personal experiences of those one thousand potentially be worth more than the “suffering” of one? If effective altruism is all about the most good you could do, then could those individuals, with their newfound perspectives change the world and bring more happiness?
I recently read an article exploring the expansion of philanthropy into Africa and the building of Children’s Centre(1). Giving money for the treatment of malaria, or Ebola may improve life in the moment, but it does nothing to provide long-term relief. Effective altruism is all about the bang-for-the-buck, and absolute most good you could do with a set amount, however, the treatment of these diseases raises a dangerous question. Is life itself worth more than a life of suffering? The Children’s Centre certainly provides these children with games, and a life worth living, and these are the sorts of organizations in the end, that provide that bang-for-the-buck. It is little organizations like this that make those impactful differences that are preached about. Although treating life-threatening conditions may save those children for a moment, it does not protect them from a life full of suffering. Therefore, our philanthropy should not focus on the simplistic notion of providing the opportunity for living like Mr. Singer, but instead should focus on making that meaningful, long-term change that will inadvertently provide a true opportunity for living life to its fullest.
Questions:
1) Are all lives truly equal? Can truly humanity work past perception such as family ties?
2) How much is the suffering of one to the gain of the many? Is there a ratio?
1) Are all lives truly equal? Can truly humanity work past perception such as family ties?
2) How much is the suffering of one to the gain of the many? Is there a ratio?
3) Is a long life of suffering better than a short life of joy? How will employing effective altruism in this manner affect society in the long term? Economically? Socially?
(1) http://allafrica.com/stories/201603130031.html
Singer puts his points out there in an extreme way and your post does a good job examining if his claims are as true as he makes them seem. Since Singer is very intense it is easy to go along with what he says. All lives are not equal. If everyone believed that we would live in a socialist world. Would you save the lives of three struggling drug addicts or the life of one doctor that can save the lives of many more people? The long life of suffering versus short life of joy is a hard question to answer because I have not lived a life of suffering. I think I would say that short and joyous would be better. Employing effective altruism in the long run would cause the closing of many charitable organizations, cause large ones to run the sector and lower class inequality. It would cause the would's equity to rise but the efficiency would decline. Effective altruism is great but I feel that people have earned the money they are donating and have the privilege to choose what issue that want to change and they do not have to pick the most effective way. Make-a-Wish is a great organization and I have seen them help kids. It does not just effect them, but those around them and really puts a positive outlook into people's lives.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely taken aback by Singer's arguments, and I think our discussions in class put it in some perspective. Personally, I could not understand or really at all agree with the idea that there should be a value judgement placed on organizations that focuses on true efficient. When it comes to giving in this way, there's really no way to judge efficiency because there's no universal code of regulations in the way Singer seems to think. Efficiency doesn't purely have to go by numbers, it can be reflected in the amount of success based on happiness or quality of life instead of quantity.
ReplyDeleteWhen talking about the Make-A-Wish foundation or seeing eye dogs vs. treatments, it seems absurd to try and decide whether one is better than the other. The Make-A-Wish foundation may only improve quality of life in individuals who are dying, not save their lives, and Singer would view this as inefficient. But in my opinion, there is no way to determine whether someone's improved quality of life is worth saving the lives of others without ensuring any quality of life for them as swell. A life is worth saving just as another life is worth improving.
There are plenty of organizations that aim to improve quality of life. Public schools, which are technically nonprofit organizations, aim to improve the quality of life of children through education. I can hardly see a way that this could be deemed an unacceptable effort, but one could argue that the funding for would be more efficiently allocated to life-saving medical treatments. But is that better? I think there has to be a way of realizing that just because one has options in the change they bring does not mean that they can chose incorrectly.
I agree with the main points of the article in that Singer thinks far outside of the box. In the example you provided about the cost of his mother’s medical bills and their extreme costs, I think it is something that Singer would like to happen in a perfect world; that is, value all lives equally. However, I don’t think anyone on a tight budget would say “sorry, mom, I can use my money to help more people in Africa.” As we mentioned in class, personal experiences shape our giving and that is something that will always stand true. In reference to your question, I think relationships are too strong to ignore and when people that are close to us are suffering, it is east to lend a hand to them.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think its fair measure what the Make A Wish Foundation does in terms of the lives one can save in Africa. I feel as if it is like comparing apples and oranges. Of course the children in Africa have equal value to those children in the US but the mission between Make A Wish and a charity that provides mosquito nets are extremely different. Both of these charities do great work and it would be unfair to say one has lesser value because it is helping less people. In the book, there is an example that was Batkid for a day. Just reading the description of that day brought a smile to my face and I think that will be an unforgettable experience that will bring joy to the child everyday when he thinks about it. I understand that happiness is different than a life but I think we also have to think about the quality of life that children in both areas of the world have.
This blog is a great argument against Singer and effective altruism. I appreciate that you take a more ethical, humanistic stance in terms of philanthropy, as opposed to the maximization approach that Singer promotes. While Singer argued in his Ted talk that effective altruism is "responding with both the heart and the head," all the points made in this blog point to Singer's altruism just being driven by the head. As explained in this post, organizations like Make a Wish are full of heart, and by knocking it down for not maximizing funds, Singer demonstrates that he is much more driven by his head, and should try to open his heart. To answer the specific questions that you posed:
ReplyDelete1) No, not all lives are truly equal, and it is due to the fact that humanity cannot work past family ties or kinship. It is natural human instinct to feel more emotion towards those who we live and connect with, the strongest connection being with family, and it is for that reason that I will never see my mother as equal to a child in Africa suffering from Malaria. She, in my eyes, will always be more important. Even Singer was effected by kinship when questioned about his mother.
2) There is no ratio that justifies the suffering of one to the benefit of many. I agree with you that it is wrong, and to try to quantify it would go against basic moral principles. In my creative writing class, we read a piece of fiction that relates to this idea, titled, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas." Omelas is a place where there is no suffering or unhappiness. However, this perfection all relies on one child's unhappiness for his entire life. However, when the moral people of Omelas see the child, they are stricken with guilt and leave the town. While it is a work of fiction, and an unrealistic concept, the idea behind it is still true. No one person (or group of people) should be burdened with excessive hardship in order to give others happiness. Perhaps if we are forced to come face to face with those who are burdened, we too will no longer be content with living in blissful ignorance.
3) I really appreciated your mention of Children's Center. This example alone shows that a short happy life can be a lot better than a long miserable one. Employing effective altruism, in the long term, will prevent those who need happiness, even if they have a terminal illness, from attaining the happiness that they might get through programs like Children's Center. Socially, it will marginalize anyone who doesn't have good odds of living, and thus "divorce generosity from emotion, when often generosity is driven by emotion" (The Feel School of Philanthropy).
Along with you, as well as all the other comments so far, I agree that Singer is a bit extreme in his ideals. I think that being an effective altruist is a lot easier said than done. Pouring over the statistics and effectiveness of two organizations is easier than writing the check for the organization you aren't passionate about.
ReplyDeleteTo deal with your first question I think that the answer is yes and no. I think that I agree with Singer in that I believe all humans have inherit value. Everyone who lives is equally valuable in an intrinsic sense. However, when looking at contributions to society, not everyone is equal. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have certainly helped more people than me and their lives are therefore, in a sense, more valuable than mine. This is a strictly utilitarian view of value though.
Two of your next questions deal with suffering and are closely related. The difficulty with answering those questions is that suffering and happiness are both hard to quantify. Do you measure happiness by smiles? Or by brain activity? On top of that happiness and suffering are very subjective. If I gave ten people chocolate bars, it would not increase their happiness by the same degree. This could be a problem for Singers philosophy on giving. For example, if a make a wish moment is televised, an argument can be made that the increased happiness of the child as well as the millions of people watching the moment outweighs the happiness the kids with malaria could have experienced. I'm not sure if I necessarily believe this, but it's a possible conundrum to Singer's argument.
To conclude my thoughts on Singer, I think that he has very high expectations for how philanthropists should behave. I think that suffering and pleasure are almost not quantifiable. And finally, I believe that emotion tends to trump logic and reason, which is a problem if effective philanthropy is to ever come about.
I find Peter Singer's ideas so interesting because they get everyone thinking whether they like him or despise him. To answer your first question, yes, all lives are truly equal. I don't believe that any person can say one life has more value than another. However, I understand that people will always put more value on their loved ones than a stranger. This doesn't mean that my mom's life is worth more than someone on the street, but I will definitely do more for her than someone else. The key flaw with Singer's argument, as you mentioned, is that he doesn't factor human emotion into his ideas. People don't make decisions based off of numbers. They make decisions by what makes them feel the best. Additionally, Singer oversimplifies what is the most effective way of giving. It is impossible to know the impact that our money will have before we give it away. I could give fifty dollars to two different organizations that help cure blindness. Both organizations have very good records and are considered well founded nonprofits. One organizations could use my money to cure someone who goes on to live their life struggling to survive in poverty. The other could also cure someone, but that person manages to get a good career and raise their family out of poverty. Peter Singer believes that he knows what the most effective way of giving money is, but that just isn't possible.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I’d like to respond to something you said. You stated that “people don’t make decisions based off numbers, they make decisions by what makes them feel the best.” It is definitely true that emotion plays a big role in philanthropy. But Singer is arguing that for effective altruists, making their decisions based on numbers is precisely what makes them feel the best. Knowing that they calculated the “most good they can do,” whether we agree with this concept or not, is what motivates effective altruists and keeps them passionate. Singer also says that effective altruists do not ignore their emotions entirely- they acknowledge that they have emotional reactions, but then make the choice to base their decisions off of rational calculations. I think it’s definitely wise to be wary of effective altruism, as we should be questioning all the methods we learn about. But is there only one correct way to give? I don’t necessarily think so. Being passionate about a cause is what keeps people donating. For some people, this means donating to a cause that is close to their heart. For some, figuring out how to do the “most good” with their resources is what motivates them. Both ways of giving are making an impact, and there’s room for more than one method.
DeleteAll lives are equal! We should be compelled to help those who are unable to help themselves, particularly those who have no chance of overcoming an illness. Make A Wish is a great organization that helps thousands of children every year. The purpose of giving charity is to help out. If you donate to Make A Wish, and the child the does not survive their illness, the donation can help their family. It is likely that a gift to the Foundation, is used globally and does not support only one person. To see the sick family member happy can make their friends and family feel good too and provide much solace at a very difficult interval in life. If we neglect giving to people who have no chance of surviving our culture is sending a bad message to these people. One, you do not have a chance of overcoming this illness. Two, we are neglecting our job in society by not helping the sick.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. I really like the way you delve into Peter Singer's opinions on effective altruism. I find his response to the comment on how he could have better used the money he spent on his mom's health insurance interesting, because it completely negates everything he stands for and believes in. This raises a valid point in my mind, which is that it is not realistic for Singer to think that everyone will value the lives of their close loved ones the same as they value a life of a child on the other side of the world. He proves this himself with his answer! I believe in an ideal world, we should treat all lives equal, no matter where one is from. That being said, when looking at family ties and close relations, your heart takes over and it is no longer equality for all...your loved ones will be more important to you than strangers.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is a clear-cut ratio for the suffering of one to the gain of the many. Life is not so quantitative, and we need to take each situation as is. It is very hard to generalize and formulate these life or death situations when it comes to providing relief.
It is hard to know whether a long life of suffering is better than a short life of joy. Economically speaking, a long life of suffering is not good for the economy. This life will most likely run a pricey bill, and even after the expenses are paid, the person is still unhappy and suffers. Socially speaking, we don't typically wish a short life upon anyone, but the idea of a life filled with joy is something that everyone would like to have, vs the idea of a life filled with suffering. The fact that it is a shorter life filled with joy may be worth it, because it is still filled with joy.
I really enjoyed reading this post, Dylan. I agree that it’s really easy to get lost in Peter Singer’s rhetoric and start viewing philanthropy as a mere numbers game. Personally, I’m a big fan of Singer (regardless of how upset he makes me) because his provocative writing really made me question my core beliefs and why I do what I do. Even if you don’t buy his full argument, you can still use some his method to maximize the impact you have. I have no doubt that my philanthropic decisions going forward will be influenced by his ideas.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I agree that happiness is a really important factor in philanthropy. Your question about a life of joy as well as Billy’s comment about happiness got me thinking about a possible mismatch in values of donors and recipients. It seems that Singer’s school of thought looks to maximize the life years and minimize suffering of people. He believes that by curing certain diseases and ailments that you will decrease a quantifiable amount of suffering. It’s pretty clear that this is true; no one wants malaria or trachoma. But how much suffering are you decreasing? How much happiness are you increasing?
Malaria seems like a terrifying foreign disease to us in the develop world and indeed it has caused a lot of suffering and deaths. In fact, malaria only causes deaths in a small percentage of people who get it (still a very sizable/unacceptable number). In many places, malaria is simply considered a fact of life and people don’t even want to get rid of it, thinking about it more like a common cold or flu. How much happiness will malaria vaccines bring to an area that is already used to the disease? I linked a really good TED talk at the bottom that addresses how ingrained malaria is to some parts of Indian culture (start at 6:45 for the culture part).
In no way am I saying that malaria is a good thing! It’s obviously an awful disease that contributes to poverty and suffering, it should be eradicated. My point is that happiness is subjective and relative. Westerners may come into impoverished and malaria-stricken regions, distribute some vaccines and leave. If they feel they made a positive impact, it’s because they did. They prevented people from getting debilitating diseases. Yet, they may not have drastically increased the overall happiness of the people there as much as they thought. They might give a man will have a longer life, but he may still be prevented from reaching his life goals, whatever they might be. If this is the case, perhaps the money would have been better spent on enabling the man to reach his goals, rather than live a longer life.
By creating such an objective method, Singer’s large scale utilitarian calculations ignore the subjective side of life. They seem to assume (I could be wrong, I haven’t read his other books) that there are universal ways to reduce suffering and increase happiness, when in fact these ways could not be more relative. To answer your question, I think that a short life filled with joy is better than a long one filled with sorrow. I’d like to see Singer factor that into his equations.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sonia_shah_3_reasons_we_still_haven_t_gotten_rid_of_malaria?language=en#t-397816
I agree with this post to its utmost; to me, it seems Singer promotes raw idealism in philanthropy, within the guise of an economical or calculatory ethos. The problem therein is, to address your first question, Dylan, it is only in an ideal world that all lives can be considered equal, because of preexisting social fact like interpersonal relationships of families or friendships. Naturally, the intimacy of these relationships creates bonds much stronger to that of a child you've never met: that example about Singer's mother was an excellent example of this.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that theoretical statistical exercises like the demon in the museum are completely arbitrary, because even if mathematically the analogy is sound, the rationale is not. This is because, to answer your second question, there is no ratio or proportion to neatly define suffering of one or the gain of many; nor is there a ratio to directly prove that saving a life is always the best option. Singer assumes that saving a life is always better than bettering someone else's life which is already secure. But isn't this assumption founded largely on a basis ignorant of quality of life, or social statuses? Oscar Wilde, in his "Soul of a Man Under Socialism," explains that charity is hypocritical because it fixes the problem at hand, but leaves the victim in the environment which bred the problem in the first place. In the case of Against Malaria, for instance, the organization prevents malaria, but leaves those children, though less likely to be blind, in a poor situation wherein a multitude of other social and welfare issues exist. Wilde condemns the idyllic thinking of charity in general, but to effective altruism especially this applies: philanthropy should be aimed towards intrinsic societal change, not a multitude of individual successes, no matter how numerous.
Finally, in my opinion: no, a long life of suffering is no where near as valuable as a shorter life of joy, because, again, quality of life is key. In the latter case, at least the person in question is happy. In the other example, even if the person is given twenty more years, if those twenty years are deadening, and trying, then the extra years were not worth living, comparatively. Were effective altruism accepted at large, the domestic non-profit sector would collapse because of the incredibly systematized focus on only the most good: therefore, the good of many Americans would fall short to the good of many abroad in poorer conditions, so little to no focus would be placed inward, and programs such as those we are looking at in class would likely disintegrate. Socially speaking, people would likely see all lives as equal, finally: however, that could mean the lessening of importance of the nuclear family, or friendships, or any kind of special relationships, at the same time. Ultimately, both economy and sociology in the nation would be radically shifted by a mass acceptance of Singer's ideas; its best to, as Caleb said, see Singer, then, as merely a catalyst to think about your personal philanthropy, because his suggestions are simply too extreme to be practiced. If enacted, ideas that are useful for self-reflective thought would just become egregious operations.
I have been feeling a similar way since reading Mr. Singer’s book and watching his TED talk. It has led to some very introspective self-examination about my own personal beliefs. While it is commendable to say and believe that all lives carry the same weight and are equal, sometimes our emotional attachments will not allow us to believe that. Empirically, yes, 1 life = 1 life. However, emotionally, the life of a relative or a loved one carries more personal weight than of someone we have never met. This does not seem right or moral, but that is how we as a species operate. We do not have the emotional capacity to invest in each living person without taking all emotion out of personal relationships. I do not think anyone would blame you for spending money caring for a sick family member instead of donating to a cause that does the most good for the money, and I do not think it is morally wrong to put family and loved ones first. However, we cannot completely discount the lives of others and neglect the needs of others all together.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you on the point on the importance of other organizations. Just because an organization’s goal is not explicitly to save lives does not mean it is a wasteful organization. If they are doing good work and impacting lives for the better, how can we say one shouldn’t give there? I agree with you that it is important for someone seeking to give to find something they are passionate about, because people are more likely to do more and go further for something they believe in. I just cannot imagine how effective altruism is a sustainable practice for people when they are discouraged from thinking emotionally.
In response to question 2, I think a big problem with Singer’s argument is that effective altruism generally values a good human life without suffering as being a long human life. But any number of examples can show that this isn’t true. A 70 year long life of suffering is not necessarily better than a satisfied and happy life of 50 years. Singer’s altruism revolves around saving and elongating as many lives as possible. But if there are two groups, one smaller than the other but with greater happiness overall- which is more important to save? This also requires us to think about what exactly is a happy life, and how do we measure happiness? Do we believe happiness can be measured in units, as many utilitarians often do?
ReplyDelete