Many philosophers argue that folks in richer nations have a moral obligation to donate aid to those who are desperately poor through no fault of their own.
Good write up. Ive also always found the term “afford” to be a bit of a loaded one. As a species we are always of the opinion that other people can always “afford” things. As if rich people’s money is tucked under there mattress just wasting away, being eaten by inflation, and taking up space. We tend to act as if that money (another misunderstood concept) is wasting away. Which, especially in this day and age, is almost never true. If you’re money is in a bank. It is doing something. It could be gaining interest. It could be being loaned out. You could also have just invested your money. Which then influences all kinds of other tangential sectors of society.
So yea. They can “afford” it. But realistically you’re not taking that money from a rich person. If it’s in the bank or invested they don’t actually “have” that money. They’ve loaned it out already. In order form them to reroute that money they have to take back a portion of that loan and give it to the needy. Which is taking money from banks, or startups, or businesses, or brokers or a thousand other places or could be.
Now on an individual level one wealthy person donating a few thousand bucks has no real effect. A drop in a bucket. But enough drops and that bucket is going to overflow.
So it’s never as simple as “you have money, help!” What people are really saying is “you’re spending your money wrong, and putting it in the wrong places.” Which might be true. But that just leads us to a macro version of bastiat’s broken window fallacy. What people will “see” is rich people helping poor people. Which I agree can be good. What people will not see however is the people who now have less opportunity elsewhere because financing, investment, and purchasing power is lower, however slightly there is an alternate universe where down the line of that money being directed elsewhere a poor person actually will be hurt.
Either way. It’s far more complicated than they can “afford” it.
You make some good points. What Singer usually says to objections like this is that you can, sometimes anyway, get more moral bang for your buck by donating. And that we can use the social sciences to make the best use of our wealth. The view is known as effective altruism.
Singer doesn't deny that the money could also be used to grow the economy. And his view is controversial among moral philosophers. Some of his critics, like you point out, think growth is a better approach to addressing global poverty than generosity.
I don’t disagree actually I think you can sometimes get more bang for your buck by donating. I also think a lot of people do donate to things they find worthwhile when they have the money and I absolutely believe that charities have done amazing work to be lauded.
To me though. The term and concept of “money” is far too simplified in these arguments. And that’s a pet peeve of mine. Money is such an odd concept. It both exists in a very real tangible “look cash!” Way. But also. It’s not real at all. We’ve never really
moved past bartering. We’ve just added an easy to understand graphical user overlay to it called money. We are still just bartering things like time, labor, goods, mental bandwidth etc. Moving money around is still just diverting those real things. Money is just information. This is what makes redistribution tough for me. I’m not exactly against it. But I think that when you see that money being taken and diverted as what it actually is. It becomes a much more interesting moral question. Does someone have the right to 2/5 of a chair I made the sold? Like if I never sold the chair I would never have the money. The money specifically represents the chair. So if I sell the shake for 50 and 15 gets redistributed it’s now impossible for me to have that chair again.
I know it’s more complicated than that. But that’s my point. It’s more complicated Ethan that!
Good write up. Ive also always found the term “afford” to be a bit of a loaded one. As a species we are always of the opinion that other people can always “afford” things. As if rich people’s money is tucked under there mattress just wasting away, being eaten by inflation, and taking up space. We tend to act as if that money (another misunderstood concept) is wasting away. Which, especially in this day and age, is almost never true. If you’re money is in a bank. It is doing something. It could be gaining interest. It could be being loaned out. You could also have just invested your money. Which then influences all kinds of other tangential sectors of society.
So yea. They can “afford” it. But realistically you’re not taking that money from a rich person. If it’s in the bank or invested they don’t actually “have” that money. They’ve loaned it out already. In order form them to reroute that money they have to take back a portion of that loan and give it to the needy. Which is taking money from banks, or startups, or businesses, or brokers or a thousand other places or could be.
Now on an individual level one wealthy person donating a few thousand bucks has no real effect. A drop in a bucket. But enough drops and that bucket is going to overflow.
So it’s never as simple as “you have money, help!” What people are really saying is “you’re spending your money wrong, and putting it in the wrong places.” Which might be true. But that just leads us to a macro version of bastiat’s broken window fallacy. What people will “see” is rich people helping poor people. Which I agree can be good. What people will not see however is the people who now have less opportunity elsewhere because financing, investment, and purchasing power is lower, however slightly there is an alternate universe where down the line of that money being directed elsewhere a poor person actually will be hurt.
Either way. It’s far more complicated than they can “afford” it.
You make some good points. What Singer usually says to objections like this is that you can, sometimes anyway, get more moral bang for your buck by donating. And that we can use the social sciences to make the best use of our wealth. The view is known as effective altruism.
Singer doesn't deny that the money could also be used to grow the economy. And his view is controversial among moral philosophers. Some of his critics, like you point out, think growth is a better approach to addressing global poverty than generosity.
I don’t disagree actually I think you can sometimes get more bang for your buck by donating. I also think a lot of people do donate to things they find worthwhile when they have the money and I absolutely believe that charities have done amazing work to be lauded.
To me though. The term and concept of “money” is far too simplified in these arguments. And that’s a pet peeve of mine. Money is such an odd concept. It both exists in a very real tangible “look cash!” Way. But also. It’s not real at all. We’ve never really
moved past bartering. We’ve just added an easy to understand graphical user overlay to it called money. We are still just bartering things like time, labor, goods, mental bandwidth etc. Moving money around is still just diverting those real things. Money is just information. This is what makes redistribution tough for me. I’m not exactly against it. But I think that when you see that money being taken and diverted as what it actually is. It becomes a much more interesting moral question. Does someone have the right to 2/5 of a chair I made the sold? Like if I never sold the chair I would never have the money. The money specifically represents the chair. So if I sell the shake for 50 and 15 gets redistributed it’s now impossible for me to have that chair again.
I know it’s more complicated than that. But that’s my point. It’s more complicated Ethan that!
Anyways. Good read. Thanks for replying.