Happy Holidays

Well, things have been slower here than I hoped. That's starting to become a trend, I fear: not doing as much as I should. On that theme, I recommend a recent NYT Magazine article by Peter Singer, who is not just a philosopher, but arguably the world's most influential applied ethicist (for several decades now). I think he first found fame with his work on animal ethics, but at least as important has been his work on duties to the global poor. In case, with the holidays afoot, you're wondering what you can do, he's got some arguments that might hit home.

If, in particular, you make more than $92k, he's got his eye on you. But his arguments apply to all of us in the developed world, and that is the theme we philosophers end up lecturing about in many of our ethics classes. Really, his argument here continues his famous "shallow pond" argument from awhile back: if a child was drowning in a shallow pond, would it be okay to let the child die in order to spare your $200 pair of shoes that would be ruined by wading in to save her? Presumably you think it would not be okay. It would be wrong. Very, very wrong.

Now, as it turns out, for $200 (this number, if memory serves, comes from Singer's book, One World), we can save one of many, many children who are going to die from easily preventable diseases. So if it would be wrong to let the child drown to save the shoes, then spending $200 on a new pair of shoes -- or whatever -- instead of preventing one of those easily preventable deaths must be equally wrong.

Now, if you haven't been inundated with philosophy (or, I suppose, even if you have!), you might be thinking: "Okay, but why stop there? That's the kind of reasoning that could have me giving not only until I give up those shoes, but until just about everything I have, other than rudimentary food and shelter and health care, is gone."

And you'd be right to have that thought: cases like the "Shallow Pond" case open up a whole new can of fun philosophical worms. Philosophers refer to it as the "demandingness" problem -- how many demands can morality reasonably make on us, and what determines the point of reasonableness? In the linked-to article, Singer brings this question to life with the impressive case of a Mr. Zell Kravinsky (as compared to Bill Gates and the Blazers' own Paul Allen).

But another thought is this. While we're mulling over the question about demandingness, maybe we should think about at least putting aside that new pair of shoes in order to easily save the child from the shallow pond.

Just some thoughts for the season of giving. I'm personally looking forward to immorally spending well more than $200 and seeing friends and family (and eating long-missed food, and...) after my longest time ever out of the US. If I'm not going to see you, happy holidays!

And if you've got a spare dime sitting around, consider sending it to Oxfam, who's mission is basically to help the world's neediest from certain, but easily preventable, deaths.