W.W.P.S.D.?

Peter Singer provides an excellent exhortation on charitable giving today. Singer, perhaps the philosophy world's most prominent proponent of utilitarian ethics, provided his most famous defense of his global utilitarian perspective in his 1972 essay, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."

Today, Singer argues why today's wealthy should expand their charitable giving. A few gems:

"But the amount of foreign development aid given by the U.S. government is, at 22 cents for every $100 the nation earns, about the same, as a percentage of gross national income, as Portugal gives and about half that of the U.K. Worse still, much of it is directed where it best suits U.S. strategic interests — Iraq is now by far the largest recipient of U.S. development aid, and Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Afghanistan all rank in the Top 10."

His main point, after running calculations similar to mine: "[A] scale of donations that is unlikely to impose significant hardship on anyone yields a total of $404 billion — from just 10 percent of American families." This amount, over a number of years, he claims, is enough to essentially eliminate world poverty.

He analysis does support mine: "The remedy to these problems, it might reasonably be suggested, should come from the state, not from private philanthropy. When aid comes through the government, everyone who earns above the tax-free threshold contributes something, with more collected from those with greater ability to pay. Much as we may applaud what Gates and Buffett are doing, we can also be troubled by a system that leaves the fate of hundreds of millions of people hanging on the decisions of two or three private citizens." However, he does admit that the efficiency and protection from political special interests makes private philanthropy a more effective use of our money. While I wholeheartedly agree, I still believe that unless charitable giving increases substantially we still may need government to compel us to help others. It's an interesting question.

No matter what you think about Peter Singer, you should read his article. It's awfully hard to refute any of his points.