:100:

Singer has the right criticism but it is directed at the individual when it needs to be directed at the way of life that is imposed on the individual, of being morally responsible for social inequalities that they are entirely isolated from — unenlightened

Power and greed and corruptible seed / seem to be all that there is...

Indeed. Still an individual can sing it as they see it. And pawns can play a game in different ways.

I confess I am shocked - as a moderately committed Green - by how many people agree that climate change is a Big Issue, then buy a bigger car to leave at the airport for their twenty-fifth flight on a holiday in some overheated landscape. Humans tend to use the individual's helplessness as a justification for omitting to make the most marginal and relatively undemanding changes to our styles of life.

There's a big difference between saving a child from drowning in a pond and giving money to people who say that they will be saving drowning children everywhere.

The first thing is commendable while the second thing is naive, gullible, and fuels the lucrative business model of turning deception into real dollars.

That is clearly what Peter Singer really wants:

Oxfam, Against Malaria Foundation, Evidence Action, and many other organizations are working to reduce poverty ... If these organizations had more money, they could do even more, and more lives would be saved.

If it could be a scam, then it is a scam.

Murphy's law makes it impossible to outsource charity.

The organizations that he mentions, are known to be professional scammers.

Peter Singer is fuelling the online charity scam business model. He is just better at it than other con artists. For all I know, he might even be getting a commission for that.

It was more a reductio ad absurdum. — Hanover

I should have known.

Peter Singer is fuelling the online charity scam business model. He is just better at it than other con artists. For all I know, he might even be getting a commission for that. — Tarskian

As someone with inside knowledge, I concur. But I wouldn't accuse him of getting a commission though.

I don't think an amount equivalent to about 1/5th of US public sector spending divided up amongst amongst the entire world is going to solve global poverty — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'll believe you when you've managed to refute the studies and facts (but it's hard to refute facts...) carried out by numerous experts over many, many years on the subject. This site could be a good start: https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/how-much-money-would-it-take-to-end-world-hunger/
It also leads to this site: https://fts.unocha.org/plans/overview/2022
Or let's focus on world hunger only: “We need about $23 billion just this year [2022] to meet the needs of people facing starvation and acute malnutrition", the study *factually* says. Giving this amount doesn't mean that the problem won't reappear the following year, I agree, but we could conceivably donate this amount every year. And what is this amount when shared among the non-poor people of the world? 23000000000/(8000000000-700000000)=3.15dollars per year to donate (!)

I condemn the poor who fail to produce enough to give to others. The only ones I truly celebrate are the victims, the ones who through no fault of their own need the fruits of the wealthy — Hanover

Hm, okay... And what's the ratio of “victim kind of poor” to “lazy poor who deserved it”?

I do not believe everyone is equally morally valuable and so his conclusions dont apply to me — Ourora Aureis

May I hear some arguments about this please? Why would you be (or others) morally more valuable than the starving child in Guatemala?

Say I spend money on plane tickets to visit my daughter on vacation. Say you're employed by the airline. How much are you going to give to the poor if you lose your job? If I don't recharge my emotional batteries by taking a vacation how much quality will I bring to my employment when I'm working? Less quality equals less compensation, less compensation means less discretionary income to give to the poor — LuckyR

But the money to be donated by the non-poor is so ridiculously small that almost anyone without a job could make this donation. It's not a question of helping the poor buy a swimming pool, but simply lifting them out of extreme poverty. In a calculation above, I focused on ending world hunger, and that requires a donation of $3.15 a year from every non-poor person in the world (!)

Singer doesn't ask himself what "needs" and he doesn't distinguish between relative and absolute poverty. — Ludwig V

So, about relative poverty, you mean that the non-poor might become poor if they give only 3,15 dollars every year so that no one dies from starvation? (See calculation above). Anyway, if you're going to go into economic territory (and this is indeed important), I'd like sources and proof.

A moral argument that presents morality as a duty and a chore has missed the point of morality — Ludwig V

So you thank people in the street for not killing you everyday? No, you do know that this is their duty. Even if the law disappeared, you would think it's their moral duty. Singer's argument is that we are killers by omission (with responsibility shared with millions of others, of course) and therefore should not be considered charitable when we refuse to participate in these crimes. I think you're right when you say that most people feel bullied and lectured when presented with even the *possibility* that it's all true. Personally that's not my case, I'm not afraid to find out that I might be a huge a--hole.

Humans tend to use the individual's helplessness as a justification for omitting to make the most marginal and relatively undemanding changes to our styles of life — mcdoodle

I agree (and I'm not immune to this criticism myself)

The organizations that he mentions, are known to be professional scammers. — Tarskian

Any solid proof? And not just isolated cases, but a systemic critique: embezzlement...
And what about other organizations?

As someone with inside knowledge, I concur. — L'éléphant

Could we know this "inside knowledge"?

Any solid proof? And not just isolated cases, but a systemic critique: embezzlement... And what about other organizations? — LFranc

Take for example Oxfam, known for exchanging sex for access to taxpayer-funded aid:

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/03/16/591191365/after-oxfams-sex-scandal-shocking-revelations-a-scramble-for-solutions

During focus group discussions, some participants said aid workers would "make sexual advances on women and girls in exchange for goods or services necessary for survival." As a result, some women and girls said they would only go to distribution sites with a chaperone, the report states.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/timeline-oxfam-sexual-exploitation-scandal-in-haiti

Oxfam is accused of covering up an investigation into the hiring of sex workers for orgies by staff working in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxfam-child-abuse-haiti-scandal-inquiry-sexual-exploitation-charity-commission-a8953566.html

Oxfam failed to act on reports its workers were raping girls as young as 12, damning report concludes

In one case, two emails dated 18 July 2011 and 20 August 2011 – both said to be from a 13-year-old Haitian girl – alleged she and a 12-year-old friend had suffered physical abuse and other misconduct at the hands of Oxfam staff.

https://curriculum-press.co.uk/blog/the-oxfam-scandal

- Oxfam allegedly covered up claims that senior staff in Haiti, working after the 2010 earthquake, engaged with prostitutes.
- Some of the prostitutes involved may have been underage.
- The director of operations in Haiti, Roland Van Hauwermeiren, supposedly used prostitutes at a villa provided by the charity.
- There was a subsequent cover-up.

Additional revelations surfaced, including allegations of bullying, harassment, and "colonial" behaviour within Oxfam.

- The commission stated that the incidents in Haiti identified in 2011 were not isolated events
- the use of prostitutes in Chad and 16 serious incidents involving volunteers under the age of 18 in some of Oxfam's UK shops

Highly-paid expensive expat jobs just for westerners while the locals work for peanuts:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/may/07/colonial-mindset-global-aid-agencies-costs-localising-humanitarianism-ngo-

‘A colonial mindset’: why global aid agencies need to get out of the way

A western aid worker in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital, for example, gets as much as $2,000 (£1,600) a month in addition to their salary, just to spend on housing. That money alone could pay the salaries of “four or five” local NGO workers, says Eyokia.

the humanitarian aid system is “still characterised by a colonial mindset”

“We have thousands of international NGOs running programmes, but what has really changed?” asks Gul.

Fundraisers aggressively pestering elderly and other vulnerable demographics for donations:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40490936

'Aggressive' charity fundraisers face fines

Charities with "extremely aggressive" fundraising practices could be fined up to £25,000 if they do not crack down on nuisance calls, emails and letters.

Fundraising Regulator chairman Lord Grade said "such terrible practices" could not be tolerated.

Organisations must comply with new data protection legislation and provide marketing opt-outs from Thursday.

'Not an isolated case'

In 2015, the 92-year-old took her own life after receiving 466 mailings from 99 charities in a single year.

The Fundraising Standards Board found that 70% of the charities who contacted Mrs Cooke had acquired her details from third parties.

Oxfam staff striking in the UK over poor labor conditions:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/10/oxfams-first-ever-strike-suspended-after-charity-offers-improved-pay-deal

Oxfam’s first ever strike suspended after charity offers ‘improved pay deal’

Hundreds of Oxfam workers began 17 days of strike action last Friday and Saturday, with Unite saying the strike of almost 500 workers would affect offices and 200 Oxfam shops.

Unite claimed last month that average wages at Oxfam have fallen by 21% in real terms since 2018. This “poverty pay” meant some staff were using food banks or unable to afford to pay their rent.

Oxfam spouts highly ideological propaganda and demands more taxes supposedly on just the rich:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/26/the-worlds-10-richest-people-made-540bn-in-a-year-we-need-a-greed-tax

The world's 10 richest people made $540bn in a year – we need a greed tax

As for Bezos’s billions, Oxfam notes he could have paid all 876,000 Amazon employees a $105,000 bonus in September 2020 and remained just as wealthy as he was pre-pandemic.

Every year, the NGO gets accused of exaggerating and manipulating statistics to stoke outrage. Every year, Oxfam calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and every year it is accused of being “obsessed with the rich”.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/18/pharmaceutical-companies-avoided-215m-a-year-in-australian-tax-oxfam-says

Pharmaceutical companies avoiding $215m a year in Australian tax, Oxfam says

“Oxfam objects to these practices but does not claim they are unlawful or liable to penalties.”

“We are not accusing these pharmaceutical firms or their Australian subsidiaries of doing anything illegal,” Oxfam said.

Oxfam wastes lots of money on inefficient and useless internal bureaucracy, whistleblowers complain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QbkGw4wm9I

Oxfam 'wastes thousands of pounds' says former employee

Oxfam frequently wastes hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of money that's been donated by members of the public, a former employee has said.

Oxfam is much more about promoting feminism and the LGBTQ ideology than about helping the poor:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/31/is-oxfam-language-guide-taking-sides-in-the-culture-war

there will always be people who get their knickers in a twist over their so-called pride in being white/British/cisgender/heterosexual/relatively wealthy/able bodied etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/21/oxfam-poverty-culture-wars-inclusive-language-charities

Perhaps not surprisingly, we were quickly accused of “wokery” of the worst kind, of wasting money, banning words and being ashamed of Britain’s heritage.

The first complaint seemed to be that producing the guide shows Oxfam is wasting money, and instead we should just get on with fighting poverty.

Talking about the importance of decolonising aid or about trans-inclusion may not feel popular

I was perhaps most surprised by the strand of criticism that suggested pronouns don’t matter in the global south and that this obsession is a western creation. There are so many communities around the world in which notions of gender are more nuanced than simple binaries.

Alright. I will take the view on the other extreme, the ars*h*le view.

e shows that it's immoral to spend money on products we don't absolutely need, instead of giving it to charities that save lives — LFranc

I will argue instead that it is immoral to spend money on others if it is not surplus. One's economic success is, for the cases that matter here, a product of one's virtue — which includes genetic virtue. Reinvesting the fruits of work into oneself, to further one's success, is morally preferrable, as to increase society's progress. Giving it it to those that are not as virtuous is ultimately a waste of resources and holds mankind back.
Entertainment and pleasure are also not superfluous. Without pleasure and entertainment, you won't be able to keep the same productivity. If engineers don't keep it up, many operaries will be out of a job, and the services provided, often essential, will disappear. An engineer giving up the nice things in life for the benefit of individuals with weakness of flesh (addiction) and weakness of mind (low intelligence) may result a net very-negative for mankind.

Even despite the inefficiencies of charitable organizations (and possible scams), these "immoral" actions are permissible for a few reasons.

1. Greed exists, therefore not everyone would choose this lifestyle. (And many/most people don't feel a moral obligation strong enough actually to do it, even if they are good people.)
2. Even if everyone did, that would likely cause a worse problem as economies no longer function and no one would have valuable money to give.
3. What do you define as necessary? Is the claim that anything you purchase that does not save a life is immoral? Then you could never improve lives, and society would get nowhere, as no money is being spent on actually making progress or consuming things.

If you follow this, you end up in a society where no one has possessions, and everything is shared equally. Unfortunately, without perfect individuals, this doesn't work out because the amount of labor being done in such a society is so much less than in a consumer-based society that less is given out and the lives of people living in it are negatively affected.

Because of the result of this philosophy taken to the extreme, it is concluded that the most reasonable way to save and improve more lives is for those with more unneeded resources to donate because they have less of an effect on the economy by donating a certain sum than the average person. (For example, with $100 less, someone who has fewer resources might buy less, but a rich person is unlikely to, missing the same amount of money.)

This doesn't work perfectly though, especially since oftentimes those with large amounts of money are also the people least likely to donate, all else being equal (including resources, the variable I talk about is their psychology). This is the benefit of having non-consumer organizations such as churches or non-profits that not only donate and improve general well-being by themselves but also provide a way for people to promote these causes.

Could we know this "inside knowledge"? — LFranc

No, unfortunately not.

But the money to be donated by the non-poor is so ridiculously small that almost anyone without a job could make this donation. It's not a question of helping the poor buy a swimming pool, but simply lifting them out of extreme poverty. In a calculation above, I focused on ending world hunger, and that requires a donation of $3.15 a year from every non-poor person in the world (!)

I don't disagree with your posting, but that is worlds apart from the OP's notion that "it's immoral to spend money on products we don't absolutely need, instead of giving it to charities that save lives". Implying that one's money should either be spent on 1) necessities of living or 2) donated to charity.

If that's not what Singer means then he needs to reword his commentary.

If that's not what Singer means then he needs to reword his commentary — LuckyR

Singer wants us to give money to Oxfam, because the girls in Haiti are clamoring for more.

Thinking about things like charity and the child in the pond is what made me conclude that there's no such thing as obligatory goods. If charity were obligatory, it just leads to this nonsensical moral theory of Singer's.

What I will say is giving away all my possessions and living basically poor as well is definitely not the best way I can help. I can help much more effectively if I allow myself to lead a successful life and attempt systemic change or at the very least yield more lucrative donations. I mean, if the argument is purely philosophical and concludes that we are technically moral monsters, but can't do anything about it then whatever, but to extrapolate this kind of action is ridiculous and flawed.

to extrapolate this kind of action is ridiculous and flawed — QuixoticAgnostic

Totally agreed.

I give to less fortunate relatives and to people that I can physically see around me.

I consider everything else to be an online scam meant to part the fool and his money.

It's not hard to set up a web page with a donate button, to call yourself the new "Oxfam", and to pretend that you will save the prostitutes in Haiti from starvation.

But then again, apparently, true to their vocation, Oxfam really tried "hard". It was an orgy of failed attempts!

What I will say is giving away all my possessions and living basically poor as well is definitely not the best way I can help. I can help much more effectively if I allow myself to lead a successful life and attempt systemic change or at the very least yield more lucrative donations

Exactly. Making the economic pie as large as possible makes it easier to give a meaningful slice of it to charity. Shrinking the pie requires a gigantic (and unrealistic) slice be given to charity to make a difference.

Thank you, you spent a lot of time gathering all those sources, to manage not to answer my question whatsoever. This is a masterpiece. Once again, I asked "Any solid proof? And not just isolated cases, but a systemic critique: embezzlement... And what about other organizations?" And, instead of providing statistics, a global proof, scientific studies, you wrote about isolated cases from a very few organizations, actually mostly just one. Don't get me wrong, these sexual abuses and other crimes are absolutely shocking, but rationality requires us to look at statistics, to get a real overall view, and not just following the sensational/shocking news that sells well.
Some of the reactions here confirmed to me that it's very difficult to have a reasoned conversation on Singer's article because too many people feel attacked in their ego and can't tolerate the simple possibility that they may not be doing the right thing. But looking for the truth is not always about trying to feel well

Then you should probably talk with Illuminatis and Reptilians etc., not philosophers please. Thanks for talking about this thing that you can't talk about though, it was very interesting

True

Thank you, you spent a lot of time gathering all those sources, to manage not to answer my question whatsoever. This is a masterpiece. Once again, I asked "Any solid proof? And not just isolated cases, but a systemic critique: embezzlement... And what about other organizations?" And, instead of providing statistics, a global proof, scientific studies, you wrote about isolated cases from a very few organizations, actually mostly just one. — LFranc

You are asking for an audit report. That would require an external audit. I just compiled a list of incidents from what the press has reported. I am not interested in auditing these organizations because I would never give them one dollar anyway. Performing an external audit is not for free. Feel free to waste your own money on that.

And what is this amount when shared among the non-poor people of the world? 23000000000/(8000000000-700000000)=3.15dollars per year to donate (!) — LFranc

Very interesting. But it ain't going to happen, so how is it relevant?

If charity were obligatory, it just leads to this nonsensical moral theory of Singer's. — QuixoticAgnostic

That's a very interesting point.

Singer wants to generalize the obligation to help someone in imminent danger of death, in whatever way we are able, even at some cost to ourselves, to donating to a charity that serves that same purpose. There are complications, but I think most people will go along with that obligation. Walking on by when you could help is less bad than standing around watching, but still, one would feel guilty, and, IMO, justifiably so.

For people who don't live in the UK, I should explain that in the UK, the national lifeboat service is a charity, not funded or organized by any state institution, but by the Royal National Lifeboat Institute.

So, does donating to the lifeboats equate to saving the child drowning in the pond? Or is donating money to enable a hospital to buy a life-saving scanner morally equivalent to the actions of the people who operate it? I think not, because the connection between my action and the life saved is indirect, in the sense that although I am enabling someone else to save lives, I am not saving them myself. Consequently, the donation is, let us say, recommended, but not obligatory.

On the other hand, I'm not al all sure that charity in general is not obligatory. In one way, if charity is obligatory, it becomes a tax, or a question of justice. A different kind of case is the expectation that in time of, for example, famine, food must be shared equally. Again, that's a question of justice, not charity.

But there is a tradition in the West that one should donate 10% of one's income to charity (the tithe). However, that doesn't specify what the objects of one's charity should be. So I'm inclined to think that while donating to charity in general is morally obligatory, what charity one should donate to is a matter of choice, depending on one's own values.

I'm aware that I am positing that there is a moral difference between face-to-face situations like the drowning child and remote situations. It's not just moral weakness to give more generously to one's family and friends than to distant unknown people. On the contrary, that's what love and friendship mean. Whether love and friendship are morally obligatory, I'm not sure. But I am sure that I'm not morally required to love specific individuals (except, perhaps, my children) even though to love someone and be friends with others are good things. (That's not well formulated, I know.)

Well, you've just admitted that you'll never give 1 dollar to any humanitarian organization, without knowing all of them and without having a global audit report in your hands.
However, that is okay for Singer, because helping the poor (or whether the duty of helping the very poor when we have extra money) can be done without the help of humanitarian organizations. Maybe Singer should have insisted on that more

I do not believe everyone is equally morally valuable and so his conclusions dont apply to me
— Ourora Aureis

May I hear some arguments about this please? — LFranc

OK, let's start with the obvious. Was Hitler as morally valuable (and what does that mean, exactly?) as Jonas Salk?

I see where you're going but to me that's a digression. We're talking about very poor people here - including children: people who didn't even have enough time to grow moral or immoral

OK, let's stick with moral innocents. Suppose I'm faced with a choice of saving my child or a stranger's child. Am I wrong for prioritizing my kid?