I like the EAs, and utilitarianism isn’t a bad heuristic for day to day mundane moral calculus. But Singer’s thought experiment is a shell game, a card trick. Here’s an alternative to his little fable:
Imagine that you live next to a pond. Every day, cruel men dump dozens children into this pond. Often these are their own children! This has been going on since before you were born. Nobody stops the men; sometimes the men jump into the pond themselves, and none of them can swim either. Whenever someone tries to save one of these children, the men find another child and throw that one in as well.
Now what do your moral intuitions tell you? That you have a moral obligation to spend every waking minute, for your entire life, trying to save some small number of these children, despite the men seemingly able to make more children to throw into the pond — and to make them in proportion to the number you save?
Perhaps that’s an admirable conclusion. Perhaps it’s admirable to be a saint, dying amongst the lepers, spending your one solitary life on this earth pushing a stone up a hill only to have it tumble back again, and again, and again, until your strength deserts you and you tumble down the hill as well, lifeless as a stone yourself. But I think that perhaps not everyone has to choose to spend their life doing this. And that you’re not a bad person for wanting to actually live.
Well, yeah, exactly. In 1990, 36% of the global population lived in extreme poverty; in 2015, that number was 10%. Globalization managed to build that fence by integrating poor countries into global markets for labour, manufacturing, and commodities. It didn’t happen as a result of individuals donating to Save The Children (even though many such charities do valuable work). The change we needed to save all those children was systemic, and required us to think in structural, systemic terms about collective action problems and governance.
Singer’s framework took the systemic problem as unsolvable and instead asked individuals to become saints: stop eating meat and eggs and dairy products, stop spending money on middle class comforts, stop having children, just give all your money to the poor. It’s a perfect example of the atomization of elite professional-class society: each solitary individual, taking personal responsibility for trying to save the world. That has never worked and never will.
Great points though I think the irony is that we *didn’t* think in systemic terms about collective action problems. Globalisation and thus access to reward for these people was a byproduct of the choices of corporations driven by capitalism. You could call that an atomised response too but it’s a lot easier to get people to act in their own self-interest (“it’s cheaper!”) than someone else’s (“think of the starving children in Africa!”).
what if there were about 20 million different children drowning in a ridiculously big pond, but you only have the agency to help one child? would it be your own child, kinda dangerously struggling swimming right now, calling for your help? would it be the foreign kid you don't like anyways, 300 meters out, currently actively drowning?
would it be any of the other kids, by some weird mechanism all lined up in inverse according to distance to yourself and gravity of their issues?
Hi Glenn. I hope you read this. I have a PhD and I have studied nine languages and dreamt in three. I read about 200 books a year. I wouldn't call myself intellectually lazy, and yet I very much enjoy Jeff Tiedrich's substack. He obviously reads the news compulsively (oh boy!)and he collects any developments that reflect badly on the MAGA movement. He documents and links to everything he presents in his sub stack, and if he makes a mistake, he issues a correction. Like thousands, I find his writing style highly entertaining.
I'm not going to Jeff for novel insights on our rapidly developing culture. I'm going to Jeff as an effective and highly entertaining news aggregator, who has helped me understand more about the pathology of MAGA and the inadequacy of the MSM.
Even though I subscribe to and read the NYT, the WaPo, AP, and the Economist on a daily basis, Jeff keeps me up to speed on the sewers in which Mega dwells. He goes places that I really rather not have to go myself.
BTW, I agree that with you that GW Bush hasn't received enough appreciation for saving millions of lives in Africa from the AIDS epidemic.
What's your actual response to the initial argument? It seems pretty similar to a common anti-utilitarian argument that it's difficult, if not-impossible, to objectively gauge the utility of various actions. This is exacerbated by dishonest actors.
Or what's the response to the other arguments? Isn't it possible that domination by outsiders is worse than those outsiders allowing a community to die? And what if you can only help some people and by doing so you do create a hierarchy that leads to more suffering later on?
My view is that these questions are usually asked in bad-faith and the questioner just doesn't want to feel obligated to do anything. Or they feel self-conscious about their altruistic choices. Intellectually I know that my donation to the senior cat shelter would be more effective going to mosquito nets in Africa, but emotionally I think of those cute whiskers and sad eyes. But the questions could still be answered.
This is a ridiculous argument. If you decide to send money to a cat charity, then send your money. If you want to give kids in South America food and education, send your money. If you decide that God wants you to move to Asia to give aid and preach the Gospel, then go. Your priorities are yours, alone.
But in everything, balance your ideas and wishes with the inherent value of who you are supporting, understanding that you do not have to totally understand the cultural differences, but you do need to be aware that they exist and account for them.
Do NOT let this head fake (colonialism, cultural differences, whatever) freeze you into inaction. There is a kid in Bolivia that wants to go to law school, and I will do what I can to help (which is not much). There is a professor in South Sudan that is helping his country through hard times, because a whole lot of people gave of their time and money to give him opportunities for an education (and survival).
The counter-argument is sophistry (which is just a fancy way of calling BS).
Hey Kevin, thanks for responding (and responding to yourself).
I'm not sure if I expressed myself clearly.
I understand that my priorities are my own, but the drowning child argument is meant for me to reevaluate my priorities. So I wanted to understand it and the counterarguments better.
The colonialism argument is more that meddling in exotic places can lead to long term issues. For example, what if the professor in South Sudan is Dinka and believes that the best way to help his country through hard times is to fund Dinka institutions until they can dominate Nuer institutions? Long term, directing external support to only one ethnic group could cause suffering than is prevented.
And I understand that a lot of anti-EA arguments are sophistry, either by people that don't want to do charity or don't want to question their charitable giving (like funding cat surgery). But since there's sophistry, there should be good responses.
First. Major props for knowing Dinka vs Nuer tribes! Yes, we did have to learn that, and one of the projects the prof wanted to do back in Sudan wasn’t able to work because of inter-tribe conflict.
I don’t want to say that those arguments are invalid (so ‘sophistry’ was not a good term), but such arguments should not be considered as anything but instructive for future decisions. Those who are wise listen to multiple counselors, so the best response would be, “Thank you for your insights. You’ve given me something to think about.” And then, act.
This is a joke, right? These are the arguments of the smartest man you know? Nothing about duty to those closest to you? It's all just utilitarian mumbo jumbo.
My friend, you have barely stuck one big toe into the pool of philosophy.
I suggest you save the child, ask her/him/them if it wished to be saved, apologize if the answer is no, beat your breast three times, and catapult her/himm/them back into the pond.
Guess what? 🥇🥇🥇Jeff Tiedrich was recognized by Frank Bruni 🥇🥇🥇
in "For the Love of Senences" feature.
Regarding the gubernatorial race in North Carolina, Jeff wrote: “Sorry, Republicans, it looks like you’re going to be forced to carry Mark Robinson to term — even if doing so endangers the life of your party.” (nominated by Linda Edmundson, Cranston, R.I.)
I look at the SBF crap a lot like I do rampant messes within the Catholic church. The bad behavior of a whole lot of the leadership does not invalidate Christian morality. But it does point out how it’s application can go terribly wrong
You should stop writing this blog. Instead listen and learn
I like the EAs, and utilitarianism isn’t a bad heuristic for day to day mundane moral calculus. But Singer’s thought experiment is a shell game, a card trick. Here’s an alternative to his little fable:
Imagine that you live next to a pond. Every day, cruel men dump dozens children into this pond. Often these are their own children! This has been going on since before you were born. Nobody stops the men; sometimes the men jump into the pond themselves, and none of them can swim either. Whenever someone tries to save one of these children, the men find another child and throw that one in as well.
Now what do your moral intuitions tell you? That you have a moral obligation to spend every waking minute, for your entire life, trying to save some small number of these children, despite the men seemingly able to make more children to throw into the pond — and to make them in proportion to the number you save?
Perhaps that’s an admirable conclusion. Perhaps it’s admirable to be a saint, dying amongst the lepers, spending your one solitary life on this earth pushing a stone up a hill only to have it tumble back again, and again, and again, until your strength deserts you and you tumble down the hill as well, lifeless as a stone yourself. But I think that perhaps not everyone has to choose to spend their life doing this. And that you’re not a bad person for wanting to actually live.
I dunno, man, I’d see about building a fence around the pond, that place sounds dangerous.
Well, yeah, exactly. In 1990, 36% of the global population lived in extreme poverty; in 2015, that number was 10%. Globalization managed to build that fence by integrating poor countries into global markets for labour, manufacturing, and commodities. It didn’t happen as a result of individuals donating to Save The Children (even though many such charities do valuable work). The change we needed to save all those children was systemic, and required us to think in structural, systemic terms about collective action problems and governance.
Singer’s framework took the systemic problem as unsolvable and instead asked individuals to become saints: stop eating meat and eggs and dairy products, stop spending money on middle class comforts, stop having children, just give all your money to the poor. It’s a perfect example of the atomization of elite professional-class society: each solitary individual, taking personal responsibility for trying to save the world. That has never worked and never will.
Great points though I think the irony is that we *didn’t* think in systemic terms about collective action problems. Globalisation and thus access to reward for these people was a byproduct of the choices of corporations driven by capitalism. You could call that an atomised response too but it’s a lot easier to get people to act in their own self-interest (“it’s cheaper!”) than someone else’s (“think of the starving children in Africa!”).
what if there were about 20 million different children drowning in a ridiculously big pond, but you only have the agency to help one child? would it be your own child, kinda dangerously struggling swimming right now, calling for your help? would it be the foreign kid you don't like anyways, 300 meters out, currently actively drowning?
would it be any of the other kids, by some weird mechanism all lined up in inverse according to distance to yourself and gravity of their issues?
Hi Glenn. I hope you read this. I have a PhD and I have studied nine languages and dreamt in three. I read about 200 books a year. I wouldn't call myself intellectually lazy, and yet I very much enjoy Jeff Tiedrich's substack. He obviously reads the news compulsively (oh boy!)and he collects any developments that reflect badly on the MAGA movement. He documents and links to everything he presents in his sub stack, and if he makes a mistake, he issues a correction. Like thousands, I find his writing style highly entertaining.
I'm not going to Jeff for novel insights on our rapidly developing culture. I'm going to Jeff as an effective and highly entertaining news aggregator, who has helped me understand more about the pathology of MAGA and the inadequacy of the MSM.
Even though I subscribe to and read the NYT, the WaPo, AP, and the Economist on a daily basis, Jeff keeps me up to speed on the sewers in which Mega dwells. He goes places that I really rather not have to go myself.
BTW, I agree that with you that GW Bush hasn't received enough appreciation for saving millions of lives in Africa from the AIDS epidemic.
A fascinating fact about EA is that while being often quite crazy, it is mostly about trying to put rationality into woke identitarianism.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/r3f45au7ewEkypygf/wokism-rethinking-priorities-and-the-bostrom-case
I was going to comment and then, decided against it.
What's your actual response to the initial argument? It seems pretty similar to a common anti-utilitarian argument that it's difficult, if not-impossible, to objectively gauge the utility of various actions. This is exacerbated by dishonest actors.
Or what's the response to the other arguments? Isn't it possible that domination by outsiders is worse than those outsiders allowing a community to die? And what if you can only help some people and by doing so you do create a hierarchy that leads to more suffering later on?
My view is that these questions are usually asked in bad-faith and the questioner just doesn't want to feel obligated to do anything. Or they feel self-conscious about their altruistic choices. Intellectually I know that my donation to the senior cat shelter would be more effective going to mosquito nets in Africa, but emotionally I think of those cute whiskers and sad eyes. But the questions could still be answered.
This is a ridiculous argument. If you decide to send money to a cat charity, then send your money. If you want to give kids in South America food and education, send your money. If you decide that God wants you to move to Asia to give aid and preach the Gospel, then go. Your priorities are yours, alone.
But in everything, balance your ideas and wishes with the inherent value of who you are supporting, understanding that you do not have to totally understand the cultural differences, but you do need to be aware that they exist and account for them.
Do NOT let this head fake (colonialism, cultural differences, whatever) freeze you into inaction. There is a kid in Bolivia that wants to go to law school, and I will do what I can to help (which is not much). There is a professor in South Sudan that is helping his country through hard times, because a whole lot of people gave of their time and money to give him opportunities for an education (and survival).
The counter-argument is sophistry (which is just a fancy way of calling BS).
Wow. Triggered much, Kevin?
Hey Kevin, thanks for responding (and responding to yourself).
I'm not sure if I expressed myself clearly.
I understand that my priorities are my own, but the drowning child argument is meant for me to reevaluate my priorities. So I wanted to understand it and the counterarguments better.
The colonialism argument is more that meddling in exotic places can lead to long term issues. For example, what if the professor in South Sudan is Dinka and believes that the best way to help his country through hard times is to fund Dinka institutions until they can dominate Nuer institutions? Long term, directing external support to only one ethnic group could cause suffering than is prevented.
And I understand that a lot of anti-EA arguments are sophistry, either by people that don't want to do charity or don't want to question their charitable giving (like funding cat surgery). But since there's sophistry, there should be good responses.
First. Major props for knowing Dinka vs Nuer tribes! Yes, we did have to learn that, and one of the projects the prof wanted to do back in Sudan wasn’t able to work because of inter-tribe conflict.
I don’t want to say that those arguments are invalid (so ‘sophistry’ was not a good term), but such arguments should not be considered as anything but instructive for future decisions. Those who are wise listen to multiple counselors, so the best response would be, “Thank you for your insights. You’ve given me something to think about.” And then, act.
This is a joke, right? These are the arguments of the smartest man you know? Nothing about duty to those closest to you? It's all just utilitarian mumbo jumbo.
My friend, you have barely stuck one big toe into the pool of philosophy.
Narcissists gonna narc, but they are not superior to the rest of us - quite the reverse.
The child can deal with its trauma on its own time, decorously in private, and not make a big deal out of it.
It's "buh ... buh ... but", you insensitive toad.
How do you believe this is great writing? You sound like tomorrow's case on Court TV. 🤪
Glenn that’s a moronic argument. You try to save the child regardless of circumstance.
I always appreciate Singer slander. Bravo.
I suggest you save the child, ask her/him/them if it wished to be saved, apologize if the answer is no, beat your breast three times, and catapult her/himm/them back into the pond.
Guess what? 🥇🥇🥇Jeff Tiedrich was recognized by Frank Bruni 🥇🥇🥇
in "For the Love of Senences" feature.
Regarding the gubernatorial race in North Carolina, Jeff wrote: “Sorry, Republicans, it looks like you’re going to be forced to carry Mark Robinson to term — even if doing so endangers the life of your party.” (nominated by Linda Edmundson, Cranston, R.I.)
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/dynamic/render?campaign_id=93&emc=edit_fb_20240926&instance_id=135336&isViewInBrowser=true&nl=frank-bruni&paid_regi=1®i_id=191440926&segment_id=178904&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/48a77125-32c9-56cd-8582-b3cb27de45c3&user_id=ce1478ce2e51de14ed53104496dd6d2c
😂😂😂 My sarcasm meter nearly broke, well played
I look at the SBF crap a lot like I do rampant messes within the Catholic church. The bad behavior of a whole lot of the leadership does not invalidate Christian morality. But it does point out how it’s application can go terribly wrong
HAHAHAHAHHA