Living a moral life requires
charity and ethics

> Why we should give

Colten Kamlade
Contributor

 

Ane: who has taken a philosophy
course has probably heard of Peter
Singer. This eccentric, controversial
figure has defended infanticide, doping
in professional sports, and bestiality.
Sifting through this menagerie of bizarre
ideas, you may have stumbled upon
something more palatable: Singer’s 1972
paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.”
It argues that neglecting to donate
to charities is morally reprehensible. This
is contrary to the idea that donating to
charities is supererogatory; meaning that
it isa good act, but not morally required.
Singer’s argument rests on two central
premises. Firstly, that “suffering and death
from lack of food, shelter, and medical
care are bad,” and secondly, that “If it
is in our power to prevent something
bad from happening, without thereby
sacrificing anything of comparable moral
importance, we ought, morally, to do
it.” The conclusion, therefore, is that we
ought to do everything in our power to

 

help people avoid suffering and death.
Singer also presents a thought
experiment to put his argument into
perspective. He writes that if you were
walking by a shallow pond and saw a
child drowning, it would be morally
right—even though you might ruin your
clothes—to wade in and save them. He
claims that this is the same as to forego
buying new clothes and donating the
money you save to charity. Therefore,
neglecting to donate to charity is not a
morally-neutral act, but an immoral act.

Image via onedio.com

There has not been a convincing
counterargument to Singer’s paper. Some
have claimed that his argument reduces
our lives to nothing but moral values, and
that we need to consider more than just
morals when making decisions. While it
is true that amoral values influence our
choices, living a moral life implies that we
put moral values before amoral values.

Others have challenged his
assumption that donating to charity is the
best way to alleviate suffering. While this
may be true, you can alter the argument

Oh my god, our worst nightmare
actually came true

> Make America hit rock bottom again

Cazzy Lewchuk
Opinions Editor

 

WwW? the US election is over, but the
nightmare that ended it is perhaps
the worst one there is, and its invasion
into our reality has only just begun.

I have always had the philosophy
that everything will be OK, or can
at least be fixed. With the results of
this election, even as a Canadian,
this is the first time I have truly felt
that everything will not be OK.

Damage control can be done,
and hopefully worst-case scenarios
will not occur. But a lot of things are
going to get worse, no matter what.

As you know, Donald J. Trump (yes,
really) has been elected the President of
the United States. The Republican party
has also regained control of the House
and Senate, controlling both legislative
branches of the US government.

President Trump is alarming for
many reasons, but an entirely Republican
government is possibly more dangerous.
Such power threatens to undo most of
the progress made from Obama’s legacy,
whether social or economical. Say goodbye
to Obamacare, LGBTQ+ protections,
gun control, pro-choice laws, higher
minimum wages, corporate regulation,
lower college costs, and government
subsidies. In the legislative branches,
America can expect zero progress until
at least 2018, when Democrats can
potentially regain control in by-elections.

Trump’s Cabinet will include
lobbyists, climate-change deniers,

 

i

straight-up homophobes and sexists,
and war-mongers. They are dishonest,
ignorant people with immoral lobbying
sources, including Russian officials.
The scandals and betrayals that will
result from his staff, and perhaps from
Trump himself, will cause political
turmoil and screw over the country.
Finally, there’s the man himself.
Trump is a racist, sexist, bigoted,
incompetent, disrespectful, sociopathic
moron. He is so flip-floppy and bizarre
in his speech that it’s pretty hard to tell

Image via pressdigital.es

exactly what he supports. Ignoring his
personal viewpoints (which are incredibly
ignorant and alarming), perhaps the
most dangerous part of him is his sheer
incompetence. The man has no clue
how the federal government works, how
a president should behave, or what he’s
even supposed to do other than smile
for the camera. He just requested to be
able to commute to DC from his New
York penthouse, and asked how many
nights a week he'd have to sleep at the
White House. As the most powerful

to include whatever you believe to be the
most effective way of reducing suffering.
If you believe that it’s volunteering at

a hospital, then it still follows that you
should volunteer as much as you can.

I have known about this argument for
the past two years, and I have done little to
change my life. Assuming, however, that
we strive to live moral lives, it follows that
we are obligated to do as Singer says. That
is, cut all frivolous spending and give to
those living in squalor. No unnecessary
clothes or food or drink; just the bare
minimum to keep yourself healthy.

I have not written this to persuade
you to do exactly as Singer says. We are too
selfish, and overcoming that selfishness
seems impossible. What I do encourage
is that we give something. Stop drinking
coffee for a week and donate that money
to charity. Don’t buy that $150 pair of
boots, and instead spend it on groceries
for the food bank. If we are convinced
by Singer’s argument, then neglecting
to give to charity is reprehensible, and
giving is an act expected of all people who
are striving to live decent, ethical lives.

person in the world, such idiocy can
cause many terrible things to happen.
He is deferring most of the actual
governmental work to his VP and other
Cabinet members, but he’s still the
figurehead and representative, one who
has the final power in crucial decisions.

Obama spoke at a former Israeli
Prime Minister’s funeral this year,
surrounded by other world leaders.
Israel and the entire Middle East
is in an international crisis which
could potentially lead to nuclear war.
Imagine Trump speaking at an Israeli
event without triggering some sort of
diplomatic issue. I have a lot of fears of
this man’s characteristics, but one of the
greatest is his lack of filter. I’m terrified
of Donald saying the wrong thing to an
enemy of the US, starting an embargo,
setting back decades of good relations,
or even triggering a full-on war.

This is a man whose staff had
to stop letting him write his own
tweets, because he was out of control.
However, he’s gaining the codes to
launch thousands of nuclear bombs
capable of destroying entire cities. He
has a friendly relationship with Russian
President Vladimir Putin, who also
controls thousands of nuclear bombs.
The potential for a Dr. Strangelove-like
scenario to start is incredible, and I
worry for the reckless endangerment the
US President can put the world into.

It’s going to be an insane four
years. I’m sure I'll have something
else alarming to write about the
new president-elect very soon.