Singer's Donations

I think the point of espousing a theory is to say, "Look, if you're really going to be serious about ethics, well, here's a proposal as to how far you ought to go. Now, tell me why that's wrong," ... And if someone answers, "Well, nobody's going to do it," I don't think that's an answer at all.

Peter Singer, interviewed by Michael Specter (1999) in "The Dangerous Philosopher", The New Yorker, September 6, 1999, p.53.

[A]n ethical judgment that is no good in practice must suffer from a theoretical defect as well, for the whole point of ethical judgments is to guide practice.

Peter Singer, (1993) Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, p.2.

Consider Peter Singer's simple solution to famine relief. The poorest people in the world are those who are in the Third World. Our interests are no more important than theirs are, and they need most of our money more than we do. Therefore, as Michael Specter notes, "we are obliged to give money away until our sacrifice is of 'comparable moral importance' to the agony of people starving to death."¹ In other words, as Arthur Ward puts it, we ought to "give to charity until we’re just short of needing charity ourselves."²

Obviously "nobody's going to do" this, but more strikingly, not even Singer himself is going to do it. He does give away 20% of his salary³, far more than most people would give. But by his own judgments, this is still far less than what he really should give. As a Princeton University professor, his salary is well over $100,000 a year⁴. He notes that only $30,000 a year needs to be spent on "necessities" for an average American household⁵. By that estimate alone, he should be giving more than three-and-a-half times what he actually gives. When asked by Dan Rather about the discrepancy, "Singer admit[ted] he [didn't] live up fully to his ideals but wishe[d] 'there were more people following me as far as I've gone, and then maybe it would be a little easier to keep going down that track.'”⁶

I do not consider the figure of 20% to be any accident. Instead, I suspect that it stems from an argument that he presented in Practical Ethics⁷. He knows that nobody will do what his theory recommends. He committed himself in his introduction to the claim that an ethical judgment that is no good in practice must suffer from a theoretical defect. If nobody will obey an ethical judgment, then it does seem to be no good in practice. His solution to this, however, is not to change the original theory that produced it. It is simply to modify what he is willing to advocate that others actually do. Rather than tell them to sacrifice until they are nearly below the poverty line, he will simply ask them to donate 10% of their own income to charity. Of course, this is still far in excess of what most people actually do. But apart from being a nice round figure, it also has a certain resonance with the religious tradition of tithes. One used to regularly give a tithe--or 10%--of one's income to the church. Singer thought that a watered-down rule like this would at least be a place to start.

This of course, puts Singer's own conscience into a bit of a dilemma. On the one hand, he is advocating that people act beneath the standards that his own theory requires. He can still justify this behaviour in the terms of his own theory, however. His theory requires him to maximise utility, which he obviously will not do by preaching a rule that nobody will practise. But he might well maximise utility by preaching a rule that at least some people will practise. Especially if he thinks that other people are likely to come closer to the standard of the rule the more he preaches it. On the other hand, how much will he himself give to charity as a result of his own beliefs? He might choose to give no more than what most other people already give. But this would be straightforwardly hypocritical, and Singer is a more conscientious man than that. On the other hand, he could choose to give what he recommends that others give. But he has already admitted that donations of 10% are really not good enough. His justification for preaching that people only donate 10% is that he is setting himself an achievable goal. But if he then only gives 10% himself, this justification risks appearing disingenuous. He could be seen as merely giving himself an excuse not to obey his own ethics.

It therefore seems he must set himself a standard above what he expects from others. Again, thinking in nice round figures, he arrives at twice what he recommends, or 20%. This enables him to high-handedly claim that he is behaving twice as morally as how he recommends that others behave. But it still rationalises his own unwillingness to do what his theory actually requires.

Well, two can play the game of rationalisation. I admit that I have great difficulty taking seriously the unattractive ideals stridently preached by a man who does not practise them consistently. For integrity is not a matter of degrees; it is an absolute. I just wish he had the personal integrity to go all the way with his professed radical beliefs. And then maybe it would be a little easier to follow him down that track. ;)

¹Specter (1999) p. 47.
²Ward, Arthur, (2004) "The Global Ethics of Peter Singer", New Thinking, Winter/Spring 2004, Volume II, Issue 1, p. 60.
³Ibid, p.72.
⁴The Daily Princetonian, April 22, 1999, cited in Ward (2004), p. 72.
⁵Singer, Peter (1999) "The Singer Solution to World Poverty", The New York Times, September 5, 1999.
⁶"60 Minutes II", 20 February 2002.
⁷(1993), p.246.