Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy. In addition to the pleasure he gets from driving and caring for his car, Bob knows that its rising market value means that he will be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does so, he sees that a runaway train, with no one aboard, is rolling down the railway track.
Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child who appears to be absorbed in playing on the tracks. Oblivious to the runaway train, the child is in great danger. Bob can't stop the train and the child is too far away to hear his warning shout, but he can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Then nobody will be killed - but the train will crash through the decaying barrier at the end of the siding and destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch.
The car or the child?
The philosopher Peter Unger developed this variation on the story of the drowning child to challenge us to think further about how much we believe we should sacrifice in order to save the life of a child. Unger's story adds a factor often crucial to our thinking about real-world poverty: uncertainty about the outcome of our sacrifice. Bob cannot be certain that the child will die if he does nothing and saves his car. Perhaps at the last moment the child will hear the train and leap to safety. In the same way most of us can summon doubts about whether the money we give to a charity is really helping the people it's intended to help.
In my experience, people almost always respond that Bob acted badly when he did not throw the switch and destroy his most cherished and valuable possession, thereby sacrificing his hope of a financially secure retirement.
We can't take a serious risk with a child's life, they say, merely to save a car, no matter how rare and valuable the car may be. By implication we should also believe that with the simple act of saving money for retirement, we are acting as badly as Bob. For in saving money for retirement, we are effectively refusing to use that money to help save lives. This is a difficult implication to confront. How can it be wrong to save for a comfortable retirement? There is, at the very least, something puzzling here.
Another example devised by Unger's tests the level of sacrifice we think people should make to alleviate suffering in cases when a life is not at stake:
You are driving your vintage sedan down a country lane when you are stopped by a hiker who has seriously injured his leg. He asks you to take him to the nearest hospital. If you refuse, there is a good chance that he will lose his leg. On the other hand, if you agree to take him to hospital, he is likely to bleed onto the seats, which your have recently, and expensively, restored in soft white leather.
Again, most people respond that you should drive the hiker to the hospital. This suggests that when prompted to think in concrete terms, about real individuals, most of us consider it obligatory to lessen the serious suffering of innocent others, even at some cost (or even a high cost) to ourselves.
The Basic Argument
The above examples reveal our intuitive belief that we ought to help others in need, at least when we can see them, and we are the only person in a position to save them. But our moral intuitions are not always reliable, as variations in what people find intuitively acceptable or objectionable, in different times and places, show. The case for helping those in extreme poverty will be stronger if it does not rest solely on our intuitions. Here is a logical argument from plausible premises to the same conclusion.
•First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.
•Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so.
•Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important.
•Conclusion: Therefore if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.
The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. Random House, 2009; by Peter Singer.
(To be continued)
Be sure to read the following responses to this post by our bloggers: