Mariannecdotes

Around Christmas, I watched an interview with Peter Singer- the foremost animal rights philosopher- on his new book, The Life You Can Save. It inspired my New Year’s resolution, to make it a lifelong commitment to donate money to reputable charities.

It’s not an easy habit, especially if you’re in debt. The interviewer, a poor college student, wonders if it isn’t better to put off charity until he’s in a better financial situation. There’s also the emotional burden, the looming guilt that occurs when one buys a movie ticket instead of putting that money into saving someone’s life.

But every little bit counts. It’s better to feel that tension than to give up on the project completely. Although utilitarianism has been the whipping-boy of philosophy as of late, I think Singer is right to describe his pragmatic approach as being both utilitarian and mindful of the “way people are.” We may not be in the right mindset to give up most of our possessions, but we can make small commitments that will eventually grow into something larger.

When we make ethical decisions, we must take into account the long-term consequences of our actions, to the very best of our abilities. I’m highly skeptical of anti-consequentialist claims that such predictions aren’t useful or, worse, that people don’t even work that way. For individuals to make long-term commitments to charity is a straightforward, no-frills way of changing the world, instead of relying on strict personal virtue.

However, in the interview Singer seems to make an (unsurprising) concession to Aristotelian ethics, that practice does make virtue. (I really don’t think that utilitarianism, deontology or virtue ethics are entirely separate spheres of moral influence.) To give an amount of money that you’re comfortable with now will make charity a habit that, in time, will become easier and easier until it almost feels natural.

As more and more individuals feel comfortable with giving up large portions of their income, we may eventually become a society which values charity over greed or luxury. Not only that, we can help lift poor countries out of poverty completely. It’s super idealistic, even utopian, but its a hope worth believing in.

Singer doesn’t talk much about animal rights in the interview, but I think this approach is relevant for vegetarianism and veganism as well. When I was 12, I decided to stop eating meat- only to give into my cravings, feel guilty about it, and then give up on the diet completely. It took me over a decade to make vegetarianism a steady enough habit (steady enough to try veganism), and even now I allow myself to eat dairy in communal eating situations.

Taking it slowly and lowering your expectations can actually be more useful than going into a new lifestyle- whether its charity or vegetarianism- with full-force. Whenever I’ve encountered a meat-eater who is curious about it, but doesn’t think they can commit, I say that its about recognizing your own limitations, and simply cutting back on the demand. It will get easier.

There were a lot of things I loved about this interview. The idea that someday, humanity will look back at the apathy we’ve shown toward people starving in other countries, and feel shame in the same way we did with slavery. Or, that with the advent of technology in impoverished countries, we can feel a closer kinship to those we give to. Broadband can put a human face on the suffering that goes on in underdeveloped countries, and alleviation of it through charity.

Watch it for yourself!