The Forum > Article Comments > Kirby is right: ethics is universal, not provincial > Comments
Kirby is right: ethics is universal, not provincial : Comments
By Mirko Bagaric, published 27/2/2007There is no logical or normative basis for ranking the interests of one person higher than another.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
The difficulty is, even if I wholeheartedly adopted the author's view, what do I do about it? As he says, resources are finite. As an individual, the money, political power, etc which I can bring to bear on any issue are finite. The suffering in the world, however, is in effect infinite.
The logical outcome of this is that I must apply my finite resources to something less than ALL of the suffering. This in turn means I *must* select which sufferings I wish to try to bring my resources to bear upon. It is simply beyond my, our anyone's capacity to universalise our desire to help.
So, given that the choice is necessary, how does one make it? Some will want to support the poorest of the poor (my sponsored child is in Malawi so I guess I made this choice). Some will want to support those who have been the victims of the greatest unfairness. Some will want to support the most vulnerable. Some will want to support those who are not seen as morally blameworthy for their own suffering. Some will want to support those who share their own values. Some will want to support those closest to home. Some will want to support whatever has the most poignant TV ad. Some will want to bring resources to bear in areas where they themselves have values to protect (hence Hicks and habeas corpus). Some will choose based on values of nationalism.
All of these are valid ways for a philanthropic person to seek to do good. They are all valid ways to apply finite resources to a manageable portion of infinite suffering.
I would be genuinely interested to hear the author's view about what he considers to be the most ethically pure way of making this choice. I for one cannot work it out. If I have ten dollars, do I contribute to a starving child, an endangered species, aboriginal education, prostate cancer, HIV, universal literacy, rights for gay people, solar research or what? Which among these is self evidently most deserving?
Anthony