Shouldn't Peter Singer Be Living In A Lean-To As Long As There Are Starving People In The World?
Alexandra Wolfe writes at the WSJ about philosopher Peter Singer's latest goal -- getting people to give away a third of their income:
Peter Singer would sooner donate a kidney than sponsor a concert hall. So when entertainment mogul David Geffen gave $100 million in early March for the renovation of Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center in New York--it will soon be renamed David Geffen Hall--Mr. Singer questioned why people thought he was doing so much good.Over Skype from his home in Melbourne, Australia, Mr. Singer says that he doesn't understand "how anyone could think that giving to the renovation of a concert hall that could impact the lives of generally well-off people living in Manhattan and well-off tourists that come to New York could be the best thing that you could do with $100 million." He notes, for example, that a donation of less than $100 could restore sight to someone who is blind. Mr. Geffen declined to comment.
Geffen, who is also an asshole who tried to block Malibu public beach access for the non-wildly-rich, also gave $300 million to UCLA Med School, $100 million of which is a scholarship fund for students attending the school.
More about Singer from the WSJ piece:
A scholar with appointments at Princeton University and the University of Melbourne, Mr. Singer, 68, considers himself a utilitarian philosopher. "To be a utilitarian is to decide what one ought to do by the principle of what will have the best consequences," he says. "To be a utilitarian philosopher is to think about how this view can be defended and how it should be applied in a variety of contexts."
This "utilitarianism" is anti-individualistic totalitarianism dressed up in a tweed jacket with corduroy elbow patches. And with shovel-fulls of hypocrisy on the side:
WSJ commenter Robert Ray notes:
The article referenced below (Kurlich [equip.org]) says that Singer paid a lot of money to support his mother with Alzheimers, although by his logic she was no longer a person and could have been just killed. The money he saved could have been given to the poor.
Scott Klusendorf writes at equip.org:
Singer is just as inconsistent when it comes to applying his ethics to family members. New Yorker Magazine reports that Singer spends considerable funds caring for his mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's Disease.27 His actions, while laudable from a theistic point of view, flagrantly violate his own moral theory. Given her incapacity to reason, recognize others, or see herself existing over time, his mother is no longer a person as defined by Singer. If he truly believes this, he should take the substantial funds spent on her behalf and use them to increase the happiness of other sentient beings, nonhuman and human, who legitimately function as persons.
Yes, all that preaching about cost-efficiencies and medical rationing for the greatest good goes -- whooosh! -- right out the window when it's his Alzheimer's-stricken mom on the chopping block.
Also, altruism is not necessarily unselfish. People get something out of it -- attention and admiration from other citizens or even just the feeling that they are holier than the non-givers. If Singer hadn't advocated for such outrageous things -- killing disabled babies so a mother won't be too burdened by their care to have another possibly non-disabled child -- would anyone know who he is?
I'll bet Peter Singer is a whole lot of fun at parties.
-jcr
John C. Randolph at April 4, 2015 10:34 PM
I am just worried about the grad students or young assistant professors, many or most of whom are women who could use his position at the school.
If not a tragedy, then certainly shameful.
jerry at April 4, 2015 10:35 PM
I'll bet Peter Singer is a whole lot of fun at parties.
He would be if I were there. There is nothing I enjoy more than pillorying moral busybodies who deign "moral" advice they themselves do not follow
lujlp at April 4, 2015 10:57 PM
Where oes he define alzheimers patients as non-people?
NicoleK at April 4, 2015 11:58 PM
Never mind wikipedia answered my question
NicoleK at April 5, 2015 12:00 AM
From a utilitarian perspective the concert hall will bring tourists who spend money, much of which will be in cheap places that hire poor people.
I'm a utilitarian philantropist, too. I believe in hiring people to do stuff, if you can. A friend of mine was agonizing over hiring a cleaning lady and I was all "Why? She needs a job, you have it in your power to provide one, isn't that the right thing to do? As long as you pay fair wages and treat her well, where's the problem?"
The concert will provide jobs for artists. It will keep prices lower for people who couldnt buy tickets if it were not for donations, and free up funds for enrichment programs for poor people
NicoleK at April 5, 2015 12:10 AM
Here's Wikipedia on Peter Singer's attitudes toward the newborn and Alzheimer's patients.
Patrick at April 5, 2015 12:45 AM
Utilitarianism is simple-minded twaddle. Does this Singer never listen to music, read fiction, or plant flowers?
I'm stuck out in the cultural desert of Darwin,AU for the next 4 months. Good on you Mr. Geffen.
Canvasback at April 5, 2015 1:17 AM
For some reason, the proponents of Life, unworthy of life, never think their philosophy should apply to themselves.
Wfjag at April 5, 2015 7:45 AM
Peter Singer would sooner donate a kidney . . ."
So, is the author of that piece claiming that the morally superior Singer has only one kidney now?
Someone gave $100 million of THEIR OWN money to something or other.
As long as that something or other isn't hurting anyone why should anyone else care, complain, or otherwise belittle what someone else does with THEIR money?
I'll be like him now and cast judgment on others - Singer is a liberal ass!
charles at April 5, 2015 8:40 AM
It astounds me that someone as generally pro-freedom as Amy would call someone an "asshole" for resisting a socialist state measure attempting to bring public access into a private beach he paid big bucks to live on. It's not as though the vast majority of California's beaches weren't already public before the measure was passed. This is just greed -- and not on the part of rich residents.
jdgalt at April 5, 2015 9:50 AM
I already give away more than 1/3 of my income--it is called taxes.
Craig Loehle at April 5, 2015 10:06 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/04/shouldnt-peter.html#comment-5947438">comment from jdgaltJD, it isn't a private beach; it's public land. All California Pacific Ocean beaches are public land.
Amy Alkon
at April 5, 2015 10:32 AM
I thought all beaches in California were considered public
lujlp at April 5, 2015 1:10 PM
JDGalt, If he had kept everything on his own land that he bought that would have been fine, but the beach is public, he didn't buy it, and there was a public right of way, which he tried to block. This is theft from the state of California who owns those properties.
Ben at April 5, 2015 1:28 PM
Geffen, weird and loathsome as he may be, has done more good for the world by paying for musicians to perform and record, as well as donating moment to charity, than Singer could ever hope to do.
kateC at April 5, 2015 11:07 PM
Leave a comment