The basic form of my question is: If Singer advocates giving up all non-essential possessions and money to famine relief, how can he justify not having done so himself?
My guess would be that he cannot. While I do not know this for certain, as I have never met him, I do not think that it is too much of a stretch to assume that he is capable of hypocrisy. However, regardless of whether or not he is a hypocrite, his argument has some large holes in it. The most significant of these is, I think, the fact that the concept of famine relief creates a self-perpetuating problem - the more resources are available to a population, the larger that population will grow, until they are once again lacking resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment