Ted Talk video: Singer′s philosophy
1) Please watch this Ted Talk video, which explains Singer′s philosophy: https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism (Links to an external site.) Singer argues that: ″If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then we ought to do it.″ That simple claim, he argues, would radically change the world, if we all adopted it as our belief. His basic argument is that if we saw a child drowning in a shallow pond, and no one else was present to save the child, then we would be morally required to save her life, even if this meant being late to work, missing an exam at school, ruining one′s clothes, etc. Since ruined clothes, a job, school, etc., are much less important than a young child′s life, we are morally obligated to stop and save that life — as long as we were not sacrificing something of comparable moral worth. (For example, we would not be obligated to help if we were rushing our partner/spouse to the hospital after just having a heart attack, or if you were in a wheelchair, the water was deep relative to the wheelchair, and you could potentially drown yourself. In both cases, you are not required to stop, since you might sacrifice another life by doing so. Though, of course, you could call for help.) The important point Singer is making here is that he hopes we will all agree that it is not optional to save that life — we have to do so, in order to view ourselves as decent people. It is not, in other words, supererogatory (above and beyond what morality requires). After saving the child, we should not expect to be applauded or rewarded (this would imply our action was supererogatory); rather, we would be morally depraved — choosing relatively trivial things (clean clothes, taking an exam, being on time to work) over a young child′s life — if we did not stop and help. Singer then argues, how is this any different than when we, in the relatively wealthy First World, buy luxuries we do not need, when 18,000 children die every single day from hunger related causes and malnutrition (according to the United Nations). (UNICEF estimates that about 29,000 children die everyday from mostly preventable causes, a larger category than merely hunger. For more info, see: [unique_solution][unique_solution]http://www.unicef.org/mdg/childmortality.html (Links to an external site.)) He asks us why we discriminate against others based upon geography — if a child was dying in front of you, of course you would help, but if that child is dying in a different country, well then, ″too bad″ and ″out of sight, out of mind.″ Every luxury item we buy (clothes we don′t need, movies we don′t need to see, etc., etc.) represents lives that could have been saved, if we went without those luxuries and donated the money instead to reputable overseas charities. Again, he argues, we are not great people for donating (a common but false idea) — we are terrible people if we do not. (Just like saving the child drowning — it is not morally optional to save the child or not. A good person must save that child and be, if necessary, very inconvenienced by doing so. This is simply what morality requires.) Now, there are many objections that emerge against this argument, some of which Singer considers in his article you read. (For a longer analysis of Singer′s argument, see Peter Unger′s Living High and Letting Die.) I will explain some of them here and then offer a response that Singer and others inspired by his view have given. They are: a) ″We should take care of our own first. Americans are hungry here!″ Reply: If two children were drowning in front of you — one is about to drown in a matter of seconds, with water entering her lungs, and the other is struggling but has one very deflated floatie on her arm keeping her barely above water. Which one will you save? There is a safety net in America for the very poor — they will survive here, but they are dying every day in desperately poor countries. b) ″I have a right to my property! I earned it, so I can keep it.″ Reply: Can′t property rights be overriden to prevent great evils? If you have extra medicine in your pocket that can save the life of someone dying in front of you, shouldn′t you give them your medicine, even though they did not (or maybe cannot) pay you for it? Property rights are not absolute — they can be trumped by the right to life. Also, we have to ask if the idea of absolute property rights would be accepted under conditions that were fair and objective. That is, if we did not know if we would be born in relatively rich America or poor Chad, would we accept the thesis that wealthy First World people can keep their property while those in the Third World die needlessly? Probably not. c) ″Due to overpopulation, we must allow some to die, since feeding them now will mean more hungry people tomorrow.″ Reply: We are dealing here with a question of a certain great evil (10s of millions dying slowly) versus a possible greater evil (three times as many dying in 50 years). We don′t know for certain what will happen, but probably as countries develop economically, they will decrease their birth rates, as commonly occurs. Furthermore, the assistance you fund can go beyond merely handouts of rice to paying for education, agricultural development, etc., which try to solve the long-term problems. However, there is still a valid argument for giving a handout right now to someone starving — again, if that child was drowning right in front of you, would you debate with that child, ″Maybe you will grow up to be a mass murderer or a genocidal dictator? I can′t know for sure if I am making the world a better place — I may make problems worse by saving your life — so I will not help″? Most probably the child will grow up and not be a mass murderer; similarly with giving to overseas aid — most probably the aid you give will be used to make the world the happiest possible in the long-run. If the problem is worse in 50 years, then we can deal with that then, but we simply cannot let a child die now due to a theoretical worry about what will happen 50 years from now. d) ″But the money I give will be corrupted and misused!″ Reply: As in the last response, maybe it will, but most likely — if you use reputable aid organizations — it will not be misused. It is too easy to think about the corruption in nonprofits and use that as an excuse not to give when there are many ethical, dedicated organizations saving lives everyday. If you were that child dying in Africa or India, would you want Americans to accept this objection, or hope they would give anyway and take a risk? e) ″But the real problem is capitalism, which is a system that does not provide for the needs of the world but instead concentrates money into the hands of the few. We need serious sociopolitical change to eliminate the roots of poverty. Giving to charities only puts a band-aid on a gaping wound.″ (This would likely be Jensen′s objection to Singer.) Reply: Perhaps so, but what are you going to do in the meantime before this major sociopolitical change happens, before your ideal political/economic system is put into place? Right now, children are dying and you can prevent that. Why not work for lasting long-term change while saving those who need it now? f) ″But I have no money to give! I′m a poor student — it is celebrities and the rich who should give, not me!″ Reply: Perhaps those with more should give more, but you have the power to save lives, as well. Even if you save one life with your meager donations (you would probably save many more), won′t that make it worth it? A single human life saved from a needless death, thanks to you. For your answer to question 1): a) In the Ted Talk video, what did Singer say about having two kidneys? Do you think that comparison was strong or weak? b) Please explain the strongest argument against Singer′s proposal (those listed above are the ones I encounter most often in my classes, but perhaps you have another one that is more compelling) c) Please say whether that counter-argument is strong enough to refute his overall argument. (Does that objection allow us to continue living our lives the way we are currently living? Or is that objection weak? Must we change and begin donating to save children from dying, or continue looking at overseas donations as morally optional?) 2) Please read this imaginary debate between Jensen and a critic, and then answer the question at the end, showing in your answers that you read the entire debate: Jensen: “Capitalism can never allow us to be totally free (autonomous), since we as workers will always have to serve the needs of capitalist bosses. Only when we, the working class, own and democratically control everything will we be as free as humanly possible. Under democratic socialism, which we have not seen yet in its full glory, we will have neither capitalist boss, nor Communist Party boss telling us what to do, as dictators. If we have managers at all, they will be elected by us and will be fellow workers. Our lives will be our own, since we will all decide democratically what happens at work and how the resources of society are distributed. Capitalism and totalitarian USSR did not free us – each system told us we were ‘free’ only to make us wage slaves, who were exploited for the benefit of the top 1% (either by the capitalist or the Party officials).” Critic’s Reply: “You say workers are ‘wage slaves’ under capitalism, but this is not true at all. Yes, workers in sweatshops are treated badly, but they still are not forced to work the way a real slave is. In fact, sweatshop work is the best job in town or else they would not take it, so capitalists help the workers. The case for ‘wage slavery’ becomes even weaker when we are dealing with minimum wage workers and others who are relatively well paid in the First World. These workers are hardly slaves, since they generally have choices on where they work, have extra money for luxuries (cell phones, cable, etc.), and have the opportunity to earn more if they get higher education or start their own businesses. A McDonald’s worker here is fabulously rich in the eyes of a starving person!” Jensen: “In general, workers are forced to work for a boss under capitalism (the alternatives are being homeless, starting your own business [highly unlikely for an average worker who lacks serious capital, and many new businesses fail], or being on welfare [which is not guaranteed for life]). However, you make a good point that the coercion to work is relative. Slaves in the Pre-Civil War South were the most forced to work, since often their only alternatives were suicide or risking death through escape. Right behind them, though, are sweatshop workers who often have no other option but work for pennies in bad conditions or starve. And then the next group is undocumented immigrants who work for less than minimum wage. The next groups are minimum wage workers, then above minimum wage workers, and, finally, unionized workers. At each point, though, there is a type of slavery in place – sell your labor power to the boss, or else. I agree, someone who has a good union job with great benefits, a generous pension, healthcare, etc. may resist being called a ‘slave.’ But the reality is that as long as the worker does not fully own and control his workplace, and as long as he is being exploited (even just a little!), he is not fully free from his chains. The chains must be smashed, not just loosened. Critic’s Reply: “Okay, Jensen, if all the billions of workers all over the world are really exploited and alienated the way you claim, then why do they put up with capitalism? Indeed, why do so many (probably most!) embrace capitalism as the most ethical system? Why are so many workers anti-union and anti-socialist if you are right? The reason is that workers believe in capitalism, since they know it has given us humankind’s greatest achievements, and it creates incentives to work harder and do better. If we adopt your system of democratic socialism, then how do we know we will get anything better than this? In fact, we may get tyranny (how do we know another Stalin won’t take over again?) and laziness (if we don’t have the monetary incentives to work hard, will we?). Capitalism is not without its flaws, but it is the best system we have thought of so far. Lastly, the boss does not exploit his workers – the capitalist has a moral right to make more money, since he invested the capital to start the business. The capitalist took a risk; the worker didn’t! Jensen: “Most workers put up with the present system for a few reasons: because we don’t think anything else is possible, mostly because we believe there are only two options – Russian totalitarianism or capitalism – which is false; we are distracted by the media, sports, drugs, alcohol, or religions that overly focus on the afterlife instead of oppression in this world (all to keep us numb and our mind off our real problems here and now); and we have been conditioned by capitalism to be excessively individualistic, cynical, competitive, selfish, burned out, and close-minded due to lack of real education and by being treated so badly as an exploited and alienated worker. Capitalism has given us great achievements, true; but it is time for us (the 99%) to use those achievements in the service of humanity, not in the service of the top 1%. We can only do this when we own and democratically control everything ourselves. You’re certainly right, we never should tolerate another Stalin or other dictator, and we won’t get one as long as we stay committed to democracy – humanity has learned that lesson. Laziness is a problem in every system, but imagine how much harder you would work if you were a co-owner in your workplace? You wouldn’t be slaving away for a wage, making someone else rich, following some dictator′s (boss′) orders, but it would be your and your fellow workers’ store. As far as the incentives to work, it is degrading to think we will only work hard for money; we prove this is wrong everyday by sacrificing for our friends, our families, our country, and for strangers – all without pay. Democratic socialism would bring out the best in us – instead of being at each other’s throats, competing for jobs, scrounging day to day for a few crumbs, we would be working together as brothers and sisters for the benefit of ourselves and everyone else. We will always be selfish in some sense, true; capitalism — with it′s ′dog eat dog′ mentality — brings this unethical behavior out of us, as we see now. But a new system based on common ownership would foster superior values of sharing, real democracy, freedom to live without dictatorship, and a focus on each other as equals. Lastly, where did the capitalist get his initial capital? From the stolen profits taken off the working class’ backs. Famous capitalist philanthropists′ charitable donations are really our money, yet they wrongly get all the credit. Capitalists took a risk, but workers take risks every day, too, such as working in unsafe conditions for low pay, and working without health insurance, so capitalists can get richer and richer.” Critic’s Conclusion: “You think capitalism is evil – a really crazy view, given that so many millions come to America, a very capitalist nation, by choice! – but the reality is that capitalism actually brings out the best in us. Think about how hard someone will work to become wealthy, which really means, in most cases, that they are providing a great service to someone (if someone pays you, then it proves you are giving them a service). Most wealthy people got wealthy because they provided a service, which means they helped people. You think people will work so hard for the common good? That’s a pipe dream. People will work hard when they personally get wealthy – that’s the way we are, as animals. Our nature is self-centered, but that’s okay, since capitalism channels that selfishness into providing services to everyone, which makes society better off.” Jensen′s Conclusion: “Those people who work hard now would have worked just as hard if they were born into a communal society, such as Native American societies, that gave rewards and prestige to those who benefited everyone. Capitalism says the top 1% are the heroes, so we are brainwashed to think they are great, but a different system would socialize us to have different values. Capitalism doesn’t channel our selfishness – it creates it, and each of us are threatened by the greediness of the system (think about the Ford Pinto, the rBGH in milk hidden from us, our job layoffs so bosses can exploit others more in China, etc.) For basic moral reasons, humanity needs to make a fundamental change in the world economy — we need an economic system that truly serves the public need not the private profits of the capitalist class.” In your view, which side had the strongest argument overall? Please explain why, and please be specific. 3) Given Jensen′s argument, labor unions (at least those that are truly democratically run and not corrupt) represent a step forward toward realizing autonomy, democracy, and moral equality. He could argue that without a union, a worker is compelled to do whatever the employer asks while at work (assuming it is lawful) — or be fired. A union provides a means of countering the employer′s demands with the competing demands of labor (the owner wants more profits, while the workers want health insurance, more paid vacation, maternity leave, etc.), so there is more opportunity to be autonomous as well as have more democracy on the job (not just every four years at the polls). Jensen′s argument gives reasons to think that as wages increase and as workers play more of an active role in how corporations are run, we move closer, as a society, to the moral ideals of democracy, freedom, and equality. Jensen, however, would probably argue against the idea that labor unions are the ultimate solution. For him, authoritarian socialism (where unelected government officials tell workers what to do), authoritarian capitalism (where unelected private capitalists tell workers what to do), or even a highly unionized capitalist society are not the most ethical systems possible. Taking morality and democracy seriously means allowing the global majority (the working class, the 99%) to own and democratically control the world economy for the sake of meeting humanity′s needs, not the needs of a small number of capitalists (the top 1%). So while Jensen believes unions do improve working people′s lives and gives them confidence that they can run society without unelected capitalist bosses, unions are not the final destination — instead, morality points towards democratic socialism as humanity′s long term goal. Please watch from 25:00-34:00 only of this documentary ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v＝K0g7v-wFIQA): (Links to an external site.) Please cite examples from this video clip, explain how Jensen would interpret what is being shown, and then think of one criticism of the argument put forward in the film clip. 4) Please watch this mini-documentary: Nike Sweatshops: Behind the Swoosh (Links to an external site.) Nike Sweatshops: Behind the Swoosh Please choose two of the following theorists: Singer, Jensen, Otteson, or Ponting. Consider the arguments they put forward in their articles and then apply their theories (you can be creative, as long as you tie what you say to their articles) to the moral questions posed from this clip. And then explain which of them would have the most persuasive analysis and why. 5) Lastly, please take a look at this famous, award-winning photo: The story behind this photo is relevant to our conversation in this section (please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_vulture_and_the_little_girl (Links to an external site.) ). Although surely it is too simplistic to say ″The photographer killed himself out of the guilt of walking away from a tiny child in need, when he could have done something to help,″ since walking away did not CAUSE the suicide — his interpretation of his lack of action, among other things, were causal factors in his death. For instance, he could have walked away, felt intense guilt at not helping, but then dedicated his life to photography that highlights people in need who no one notices; if he took this approach, he would view the option of suicide as tremendously unethical, since he would be abandoning all those who needed his work to have a voice. Singer wanted to highlight how we are in a similar moral situation as that photographer, in every minute of every day. We make all kinds of excuses why we can just walk away from this topic and the facts with no guilt, but we know, deep down, those arguments are self-serving and empty (if we get below all the defenses). (At least that is what he thinks.) a) As we end this section, do you think the fact that there are many children like this dying right now from lack of very basic necessities — in a world of plenty, no less — is your moral problem? Let′s put it this way: If you were that child about to die today, and you were able to read some of the posts from our class of relatively rich First World people, explaining why Singer′s argument is wrong, do you think you would accept their explanations to do nothing? (This is difficult to imagine, since you are not in their shoes and, instead, are surrounded by luxuries (″luxuries,″ from the perspective of people in absolute poverty), and we may have a subconscious sense of horror at the thought that we really could have been in their shoes if we did not win the global lottery by being born into the First World. But much of morality is about moral imagination — trying to imagine what it would feel like to experience what others feel.) b) Please watch this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v＝vN2WzQzxuoA (Links to an external site.) Do you think First World Privilege is real? Or not? If it is real, do you have it? If so, what does it mean to you in terms of ethics? c) Do you think Ponting would agree or disagree with Singer? Please explain. PLEASE MAKE IT CLEAR YOU WATCHED THE VIDEOS IN YOUR ANSWERS, OR CREDIT CANNOT BE GIVEN. PLEASE ANSWER EACH PART OF THE QUESTION TO GET CREDIT FOR YOUR ANSWERS.