Peter Singer: The Moral Obligations Owed to Strangers

Summary

The speaker reflects on an influential essay addressing the moral obligations of affluent individuals to assist those in extreme poverty, triggered by the 1971 refugee crisis in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Using the example of rescuing a drowning child in a shallow pond, the speaker argues that, much like the child, people suffering from poverty are in urgent need of help, and affluent individuals should contribute to alleviating this suffering. Over time, the rise of effective altruism has brought renewed attention to the essay's argument, highlighting the impact of well-targeted aid and evidence-based philanthropy.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker is presenting at Chatham House, sharing personal insights about a previous article written in response to the East Pakistan refugee crisis of 1971, which later became part of the basis for the effective altruism movement.
• 😀 The article originally argued that affluent people have an obligation to help those suffering in extreme poverty, highlighting the 1971 refugee crisis in Bangladesh as an example.
• 😀 The speaker reflects on how moral philosophy, especially ethics, was viewed in the 1960s, where many philosophers considered ethics to be more about meta-ethics rather than practical moral guidance on substantive issues.
• 😀 The speaker uses a famous philosophical example about a child drowning in a pond to argue that individuals have moral obligations to help strangers in distress, even when they have no prior responsibility for them.
• 😀 In this thought experiment, the cost to the individual (ruining their expensive clothes) is compared with the moral obligation to save a child's life, suggesting that the cost is morally insignificant compared to the life saved.
• 😀 The main argument is that if we have the means to prevent harm at a relatively small cost to ourselves, we ought to do so. This principle is applied to the context of global poverty and the refugee crisis.
• 😀 The speaker challenges the notion that helping others in extreme poverty is merely a 'supererogatory' act, and asserts that there are cases where individuals in affluent societies have a moral duty to help those in need.
• 😀 Over time, the perception of the article has shifted, with some people initially rejecting the argument because it seemed to imply that most of us are morally in the wrong for not helping enough, but now people are more inclined to take action based on this argument.
• 😀 The emergence of the effective altruism movement has played a key role in changing perceptions. Effective altruism focuses on evidence-based philanthropy, ensuring that donations and aid lead to measurable positive outcomes.
• 😀 The development of organizations like GiveWell and The Life You Can Save has provided resources to help people direct their charitable giving to highly effective organizations, thus overcoming past concerns about the inefficiency of aid.
• 😀 The speaker concludes that the moral obligation to help others, backed by evidence of impact and successful philanthropy, is gaining traction and leading to tangible improvements in areas such as child mortality and hunger in developing countries.

Q & A

What is the core argument presented in the speaker's philosophical essay?

The core argument is that individuals in affluent societies have a moral obligation to help those suffering in extreme poverty or crisis, even if they have no prior responsibility or relationship with those people. The argument is illustrated through the 'child in the pond' analogy, which shows that moral obligations can exist even toward strangers in distress.

How does the 'child in the pond' analogy help make the philosophical argument more relatable?

The analogy presents a scenario where a person sees a child drowning in a shallow pond. The moral intuition is that one should save the child, even at personal cost, such as ruining their expensive shoes. This example highlights the moral obligation to act when someone is in distress, even if there is no prior connection, which parallels the obligation to help those in extreme poverty or crisis.

What philosophical shift is discussed in the speaker's reflection on ethics during the 1960s?

In the 1960s, there was a shift in philosophical thought, with some philosophers beginning to argue that ethics could be applied to real-world issues, such as the Vietnam War and racial discrimination. Before that, many philosophers viewed ethics as neutral or merely meta-ethical, focusing on the nature of moral judgments rather than on specific moral actions.

What was the specific historical context that led the speaker to write the essay?

The essay was inspired by the 1971 refugee crisis caused by the conflict in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Nine million refugees fled to India as a result of brutal repression by the Pakistani army, creating a dire humanitarian situation. The speaker used this crisis as a starting point to explore whether individuals in affluent societies have an obligation to help those in need.

What objections does the speaker anticipate regarding the argument of moral obligation to help strangers?

The speaker anticipates objections such as the argument that helping strangers is not an obligation unless there is a personal connection or voluntary commitment. The speaker also acknowledges that the moral cost of helping others may be seen as too demanding, which is a common objection to the argument that we should help those in extreme poverty.

How does the concept of moral comparability play a role in the essay?

Moral comparability is central to the argument that the cost of helping others, such as the expense of replacing a ruined pair of shoes, is not morally comparable to the value of a child's life. The speaker argues that while there is some cost to helping, it is not morally significant enough to justify inaction when the consequences of not helping are far worse.

How has the reception of the speaker's argument changed over time?

Initially, the essay was seen as presenting a philosophical puzzle, challenging students to find flaws in the argument that we have a moral obligation to help strangers. Over time, however, the argument has gained wider acceptance, especially with the rise of the effective altruism movement, which emphasizes evidence-based charity and the practical application of the moral argument.

What is effective altruism, and how does it relate to the speaker's argument?

Effective altruism is a movement that uses reason and evidence to determine the most effective ways to help others. It emphasizes giving to organizations that have the highest impact in improving the well-being of those in need. The speaker's argument about moral obligation to help others aligns with the goals of effective altruism, as both focus on the ethical duty to help others, particularly through targeted, evidence-based aid.

What role does evidence play in the development of the effective altruism movement?

Evidence plays a crucial role in effective altruism by assessing the actual impact of charitable organizations. The movement prioritizes organizations that can demonstrate measurable outcomes in improving lives, rather than just focusing on the administrative costs of charities. This focus on impact has been a major development in the philanthropic sector.

What examples of successful philanthropy does the speaker provide to support their argument?

The speaker cites the philanthropic efforts of figures like Bill and Melinda Gates, who have used their vast resources to tackle global issues such as child mortality and hunger. These examples demonstrate how significant philanthropic efforts, guided by reason and evidence, can make a real difference in improving the lives of people in developing countries.