The Nirmukta Freethought Community

The question is dead simple but equally tricky.
Is it a moral responsibility of a freethinker to be philanthropic?

(30-01-2011 11:36 PM)United_Floyd Wrote:  The question is dead simple but equally tricky.
Is it a moral responsibility of a freethinker to be philanthropic?

One philosopher who has written much on the subject is Peter Singer, who explains his stance on the moral necessity of philanthropy in this interview.
This excerpt from his book The Life You Can Save is what he calls a 'logical argument from plausible premises' which attempts to establish philanthropy as a moral obligation (italics mine).

Quote:First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

(31-01-2011 12:15 AM)arvindiyer Wrote:  

Quote:First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.
Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
Conclusion: Therefore, if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

I'm a big fan of Pete Singer. I would agree with his reasoning here, but instead of calling the first two premises "plausible premises", I would simply say these are intersubjective moral premises given which these particular conclusions can be drawn. The premises themselves are neither plausible nor implausible, since they are observer-dependent and subjective. But its possible Singer was using "plausible" as shorthand.

(31-01-2011 02:07 AM)Ajita Kamal Wrote:  I'm a big fan of Pete Singer. I would agree with his reasoning here, but instead of calling the first two premises "plausible premises", I would simply say these are intersubjective moral premises given which these particular conclusions can be drawn. The premises themselves are neither plausible nor implausible, since they are observer-dependent and subjective. But its possible Singer was using "plausible" as shorthand.

Singer does indeed seem to be using "plausible" as shorthand here. He places these arguments in a chapter immediately after one that discusses our 'moral intuitions'. To illustrate what he means by 'moral intuitions', he cites how an 'unconscious moral grammar' underlies surprisingly similar responses across societies and ethnicities to Peter Unger's trolley problem. He then proceeds to crystallize this moral intuition into a set of premises, and therefore one could say that these are intersubjective (and not 'fact-claims' as the now table-banging Sam Harris would have us believe). In other words, these claims maybe 'informed by science' as Russell Blackford would concede (the science here being the surveys/imaging studies with the trolley problem), but people who reject these claims and act differently may do so even without holding wrong conceptions about the science.

Peter Unger himself seems to have quite a bit to say on the subject in the essay Living high and letting die.

Is there a measure for the success of philanthropic activities in the developed world? Probably only this factor interests me than the moral obligation.

I think welfare of the society should rest solely on the government. Citizens only need to pay their taxes dutifully. My understanding is that;
- Government can make long term and comprehensive plans
- Self-image of the aid recipients would not be dented in such situations as they would view it as a government duty

I'm not convinced that the Indian government doesn't raise enough money from the taxes to uplift the poor people.

I give for charity during natural calamities but beggars don't move me. I guess the idea is natural disasters are momentary setbacks and momentary donations are good enough. However, beggars are a long term problem and I won't make a difference and the government should take care of them.

Then sometimes I need to spend money on needy relatives. I don't mind spending on their education but it frustrates when I have to give money for their marriages. However, I can't offer them an alternate society or find a groom for them who completely understand their situation. This in-group altruism also disturbs me that those relatives may lose their dignity.

(01-02-2011 10:41 AM)manju Wrote:  Is there a measure for the success of philanthropic activities in the developed world? Probably only this factor interests me than the moral obligation.

I think welfare of the society should rest solely on the government. Citizens only need to pay their taxes dutifully. My understanding is that;
- Government can make long term and comprehensive plans
- Self-image of the aid recipients would not be dented in such situations as they would view it as a government duty

I agree that we need no-nonsense measures of success for philanthropy, which can be seen as 'returns on an social investment'. While there is no substitute for good governance, civil society initiatives like Rang De (FAQ page here) offer a promising model in which (i) there are inbuilt measures of progress in terms of loan repayment percentage etc. (ii) self-image of aid recipients is duly respected (a donor cannot even waive the interest on his/her loan)

(01-02-2011 10:41 AM)manju Wrote:  I don't mind spending on their education but it frustrates when I have to give money for their marriages. However, I can't offer them an alternate society or find a groom for them who completely understand their situation.

In this recent article, Dr. K P S Kamath emphasizes that to bring about this 'alternative society' there are no shortcuts and it may take more time than freethinkers in their justified restlessness are willing to wait.

Quote:The third step would require thousands of dedicated volunteers trained in teaching, guiding, empowering people in distress. The enormity of this step might be discouraging to Secular Humanists who want quick results. The truth is there are no short cuts in the business of reforming people. In my own practice, I have found it so hard to convince my clients to change their behavior even after they acknowledge that their behavior was the cause of their problem.