Philanthropy For Billionaires, And For The Rest Of Us

NPR's Marketplace broadcast a bit on the ethical argument in favor of giving more during tough economic times (skip to 18:57)."It's especially easy to forget the needy when the economy slows down. Bioethicist Peter Signer says in his latest book, The Life You Can Save, it's called, that not only should we give more, even in a recession, it's unethical not to."

Singer tells the familiar ethicist's allegory of the person who sees a child drowning in a pond, with no one else around to help. He says that in such a case, we would all agree the ethical thing to do would be to jump in to save the child, regardless of whether we would ruin our most expensive pair of shoes in doing so. I would probably remove my expensive shoes first, as well as my expensive suit jacket, because those things would limit my range of movement and thus my ability to safely and effectively rescue the child. But details aside, I take his point: if you would sacrifice your clothing to save a life, you ought to sacrifice the cost of that clothing, in the form of a monetary donation, to save a life. And no matter what the tax code might say about it, charitable giving is not charitable giving is not charitable giving: money given to cultural institutions in the developed world, for example, is a very different (and less essential) category of giving than money given to basic, lifesaving health programs in the developing world.

Singer authored a thought-provoking story in the NYTimes Magazine a couple of years ago when the US wasn't in quite the scarcity mindset it is now. The story was called "What Should A Billionaire Give -- And What Should You?" In it, he suggests a graduated scheme of giving in which a household's charitiable contribution is tied to its annual income, anywhere from 33% of income for the superrich to 1% of income for those who are able to meet their basic needs. Under his scheme, I ought to be giving around 10% of my household income to lifesaving international development work--which I am not for a variety of reasons, most of which boil down to the fact that it is it too easy and too normal to be selfish.

More on Singer's ethics in the form of a Q&A here. At the risk of spoiling it for you, Singer himself does not live up to the standard he believes he ought to. In response to a reader's question on his point, he writes, "Ultimately, I don't think my indulgences can be justified. I know that I'm very far from being a saint. I should spend less on myself and give away more of what I earn. Of course, I give much more than most. But I know that that isn't the right standard. As for deciding how much is enough, I just do a little better each year."

This recession has reminded me that I should be giving more money away, and over the years work like Singer's and the nice people at Lazarus At The Gate has made me reevaluate where that money would be best spent. I don't give as much as I ought to, but like Singer, I am trying to do better each year. How has the recession changed how you think about your poverty-fighting obligations?