How Does the Singer Respond to the Objection That His Theory Is Too Demanding and That People Will Never Make the Sacrifices He Suggests?

Peter Singer addresses the objection that his theory is too demanding by acknowledging individuals' right to spend money on themselves while simultaneously emphasizing a strong ethical responsibility towards the less fortunate, particularly focusing on the compassionate use of wealth beyond basic necessities.

Singer's Nuanced Acknowledgment

Singer understands that his ethical framework, which often implies a significant obligation to aid those in dire need, can be perceived as an extreme demand on personal resources and lifestyle. His response is not to retract his core argument but to provide a more nuanced perspective on its practical application:

Acknowledging the Right to Personal Spending

Singer recognizes that individuals have a legitimate right to spend money on themselves and maintain a reasonable quality of life. He doesn't advocate for self-impoverishment but rather challenges the moral justification for luxury spending when basic needs remain unmet globally.

Emphasizing Ethical Responsibility

Despite acknowledging personal spending, Singer firmly reiterates the ethical responsibility to consider the plight of those less fortunate. He highlights the moral imperative for individuals, especially those in affluent societies, to contribute meaningfully to alleviating suffering and poverty. This responsibility often involves a re-evaluation of discretionary spending.

The Concept of "Excess Wealth"

A key component of Singer's response involves distinguishing between spending on necessities and spending on "excess wealth."

Beyond Basic Necessities

Singer suggests that a significant portion of the wealth accumulated by affluent individuals goes beyond what is required for a comfortable and dignified life. This "excess wealth" or discretionary income, in his view, carries a strong moral obligation for more ethical and humane use.

Focus on Discretionary Income

Rather than demanding that people sacrifice their basic comforts, Singer's argument often targets wealth spent on luxuries, non-essential goods, or excessive savings that could otherwise make a profound difference in the lives of others. He proposes that redirecting these funds towards effective charitable causes is a moral duty.

Practical Implications and Shifting Moral Baselines

Singer's approach aims to shift the conventional moral baseline, encouraging individuals to see giving as less of an optional act of charity and more of a moral obligation.

• Rethinking Luxury Spending: He prompts individuals to consider whether the marginal utility of additional luxury items outweighs the immense good that could be done by using those resources to save lives or alleviate extreme poverty.
• The Power of Collective Impact: Even if not everyone fully adheres to the most demanding interpretation of his theory, Singer believes that a widespread shift in perspective towards more ethical spending of excess wealth can lead to substantial positive global change.

Addressing the "People Will Never Make the Sacrifices" Objection

While acknowledging the practical difficulties of people making the suggested sacrifices, Singer often maintains that the moral principle remains valid, regardless of how many people adhere to it.

Singer recognizes that human nature and societal norms make radical, widespread self-sacrifice unlikely. However, he often argues that this practical reality does not negate the moral imperative. Instead, he aims to inspire at least a greater degree of giving and a re-evaluation of ethical priorities among the affluent, highlighting that even small, consistent contributions from many can have a transformative effect. His work often serves as a challenge to complacency rather than a rigid, unattainable command.