In the face of the super-rich abdicating their responsibility towards the less-endowed, do we, common citizens, have any obligation to compensate for their callousness?
A thread 👇 1/
A thread 👇 1/
Portugal is one of EU's poorest countries, but is nevertheless rich enough to be classified as a developed nation.
If we take Portugal's average income as the standard of being "affluent" or "well-off", then there are at least, a *BILLION* affluent people in the world. 2/
If we take Portugal's average income as the standard of being "affluent" or "well-off", then there are at least, a *BILLION* affluent people in the world. 2/
A very liberal estimate of what will be required to eliminate extreme poverty from the world is 130 billion dollars per year, possibly as direct cash transfers. /3
Basically, if every affluent person in the world gave just $130 per year to the cause, extreme poverty would disappear from earth.
But they don't.
That naturally raises the question: do the rest of us, less-endowed people, have the responsibility to compensate for them? /4
But they don't.
That naturally raises the question: do the rest of us, less-endowed people, have the responsibility to compensate for them? /4
As philosopher Anthony Appiah phrases it:
“If so many people in the world are not doing their share—and they clearly are not—it seems to me I cannot be required to derail my life to take up the slack.” /5
“If so many people in the world are not doing their share—and they clearly are not—it seems to me I cannot be required to derail my life to take up the slack.” /5
Peter Singer offers the following example:
Suppose you're near a pond and see 10 children drowning. There're 9 other adults around you (from your neighborhood swimming club), so you rush into the pond and bring a child safely to shore. /6
Suppose you're near a pond and see 10 children drowning. There're 9 other adults around you (from your neighborhood swimming club), so you rush into the pond and bring a child safely to shore. /6
You naturally expect the other adults around you to have done the same, thus saving everyone.
But to your horror, only 4 others have bothered to go into the pond, while the rest have simply walked off. /7
But to your horror, only 4 others have bothered to go into the pond, while the rest have simply walked off. /7
"The 'fair-share' theorists would say that you have now done your fair share of the rescuing. If everyone had done what you did, all of the children would have been saved.. your fair share of the task is simply to rescue one child, and you are under no obligation to do more.." /8
Just like you wouldn't leave the remaining children to drown just because others didn't do their fair share of work, you cannot opt out of contributing more than your fair share of money to charity just because others won't. /9
Sure, if you can bring about a systemic change that would reduce inequality in the world, please go ahead.
But till that happens, you're *not* morally absolved of doing more than your fair share, just like you weren't morally absolved of saving the other drowning children. /10
But till that happens, you're *not* morally absolved of doing more than your fair share, just like you weren't morally absolved of saving the other drowning children. /10
Summarised and quoted from brilliant (and extremely cheap) book "The Life you can Save", by @PeterSinger
