re: Peter Singer’s 1972 essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVl5kMXz1vA

At minute 1:20 the presenter says: “Believe it or not, the conclusion is that we need to completely re-work our entire society.”

Yes, right, that is true.

Then he says: “It’s immoral when an affluent person spends money on a non-necessity. It’s an obligation to give that money to a charity or an agency that will assuredly feed someone who is starving.”

That’s not true.

First of all the definitions of “affluent” and “non-necessity” are vague.

Much more to the point, though, is:

Peter Singer is a big animal welfare advocate (which I admire). How about animals that are starving? Is it an obligation to also give some of our luxury-expenditures money to a charity or an agency that will assuredly feed a starving animal?

Asking that question gives a sense of generalizing to: It’s an obligation to give our luxury-expenditures money to a charity or an agency that will assuredly reduce suffering.

Reduce suffering throughout the community of life? It’s ludicrous to think in terms of that kind of “obligation.”

* * * *

Must I give some of my luxury-expenditures money to a charity or an agency that will assuredly directly reduce suffering? Well, I think I can make a case that it’s better to give some of my money to projects that I believe will long-range do more to alleviate generalized starvation, oppression, immiseration, suffering … i.e., which will ultimately result in greater good for greater numbers.

* * * *

Meanwhile, anyway, the amount of suffering assured by current conditions, lifeways, systems is immoral and we do need to re-work our entire society.