[6.9.2.] Unger’s Argument: The Bugatti.

 

At this point Singer uses an argument put forward by Peter Unger (professor of philosophy, New York University).[1]

 

[See the thought experiment about Bob and his Bugatti, RTD 156-59.]

 

Singer notes the following differences between Bob and Dora:

·         the child Bob neglects to save is too far removed from him for Bob to look into his face or for them to have any sort of personal relationship;

·         Bob did not mislead the child or in any other way begin the chain of events leading to the child’s death.

So Bob’s choosing to save his car is much more like the decision of most Americans to spend money on themselves rather than to save the lives of young strangers far away.

 

 

[6.9.3.] Objections and Replies.

 

Objection #1: There is a relevant difference between Bob’s situation and our own. The difference is that Bob is certain that throwing the switch will save the child’s life. We are uncertain how much of our donated money will actually go toward saving lives rather than to unnecessary expenses, padding the pockets of foreign dictators, etc.

 

Singer’s response: Unger estimates that it costs $200 to finance the survival of an impoverished 2-year-old for four years, helping carry her through the most dangerous years of her young life. This estimate assumes that not all of the money will actually go towards aid and that some of it will go toward unnecessary expenses.

 

Another response: Suppose that when Bob throws the switch to divert the train, there is a 100% chance that his car will be destroyed, but only a 20% chance that the child’s life will be saved (because, say, debris will be thrown for hundreds of yards, endangering the child). Shouldn’t Bob still do whatever he can to try to save the child, even if his efforts might fail? Now apply this reasoning to the case of world poverty... Suppose there is only a 20% chance your donation will actually go to helping a child (rather than padding the pockets of some dishonest bureaucrat or dictator). Shouldn’t you still take that chance rather than spending the money on something you yourself don’t need at all?

 

Objection #2: It is unrealistic to demand so much from people. Most people in the developed world will not respond to Singer’s arguments by giving away all of their extra income. They will simply shrug off his criticisms.

 

Singer’s response: He does not expect the majority of people to begin donating all, or even most, of their extra income. “When it comes to praising or blaming people for what they do, we tend to use a standard that is relative to some conception of normal behavior.” (RTD 159) So he will not “go out of his way to chastise” wealthy Americans who give away only 10% (for example) of their wealth. But that doesn’t mean that those wealthy Americans are not obligated to give more… and it doesn’t mean that ordinary, middle-class Americans are not obligated to give what they are able.

 

 

Objection #3:  There will always be impoverished children whose lives can be saved with such donations.

 

So, Singer’s view has the consequence that we will be obligated to continue giving any time that we have extra money. This demand is too great. (Cf. the Argument from Excessive Demand, one of Rachels’s arguments against utilitarianism.)

 

Singer’s response: He accepts this seemingly objectionable consequence but denies that it is too much to except. He defends his acceptance of it by asking: what additional sacrifices would we require from Bob in order to save the child’s life?

 

…only when the sacrifices become very significant indeed [e.g., if Bob saves the child, shrapnel from the train wreck will cut off his toe or his leg] would most people be prepared to say that Bob does nothing wrong when he decides not to throw the switch. Of course, most people could be wrong; we can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. But consider for yourself the level of sacrifice that you would demand of Bob, and then think about how much money you would have to give away in order to make a sacrifice that is roughly equal to that. It’s almost certainly much, much more than $200. For most middle-class Americans, it could easily be more like $200,000. (RTD 158-59)

 

 

Objection #4: There is another relevant difference between Bob and us: Bob is the only one who can save the child on the tracks, but there are hundreds of millions of different people who can donate money to aid organizations.

 

Singer’s response: Most of those people aren’t donating anything. The fact that there are hundreds of thousands who could donate but choose not to does not imply anything about whether you are obligated to donate. Suppose there are a number of different people along the tracks, each with his own Bugatti, and each decides to let the train kill the child. This does not imply that it is moral for you to make the same choice.

 

Stopping point for Wednesday October 21. For next time, read "Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat: It's All in Good Taste" by Alastair Norcross (RTD ch.15)