Giving a Damn

Peter Singer writes on the ethics of charitable giving. Some of his arguments I like very much. In particular, the idea that in purchasing raw goods from countries ruled by despots and revolutionary cabals, industrialized nations are effectively fencing stolen goods. Thus our affluence in part derives from robbing the poor. This, I would argue - and here I recall that Singer in other writings disagrees - is a good reason for us to refuse to coddle tyrants Jimmy Carter style and instead to spread democracy.

Surprisingly, he supports the U.S. system whereby the government 'contracts-out' a substantial portion of its philanthropy to individuals (tax deductions on philanthropic contributions mean that that ultimately, the government is merely empowering individuals to spend its money). He argues that individuals are less likely to try to make political capital out of aid and thereby direct away from the truely needy. This may be true, but similar arguments could be made against many democratic institutions. Elections encourage the exchange of moral positions for expedient ones. Trial by jury is notoriously inefficient. Democracy does not strive to maximize efficiency. The alternative, allowing wealthy businessmen to set the philanthropic agenda of the nation is wrong. Success in business does not entitle any individual to arrogate the power of deciding which causes a society should support, nor does it guarantee any insight into which causes are most worthy. Rather, private giving should be encouraged for the good that it does to the giver. But society, through its elected institutions, should decide where to channel its giving.