Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence.

TLDR

Despite the clear benefit of charitable donations to reduce child mortality, most people give little or nothing, and philosophers argue that our moral intuitions are shaped more by distracting psychological dispositions than by basic moral values. The paper investigates the moral status of charitable giving and seeks to identify the source of the commonly lenient assessment. The author analyzes how psychological dispositions shape moral judgments. He shows that the unhelpful behavior is monstrously wrong, and by uncovering sensible ethics and presenting empirical facts and practical instructions, he points the way to a compassionate new moral philosophy.

Abstract

By contributing a few hundred dollars to a charity like UNICEF, a prosperous person can ensure that fewer poor children die, and that more will live reasonably long, worthwhile lives. Even when knowing this, however, most people send nothing, and almost all of the rest send little. What is the moral status of this behavior? To such common cases of letting die, our untutored response is that, while it is not very good, neither is the conduct wrong. What is the source of this lenient assessment? In this contentious new book, one of our leading philosophers argues that our intuitions about ethical cases are generated not by basic moral values, but by certain distracting psychological dispositions that all too often prevent us from reacting in accord with our commitments. Through a detailed look at how these tendencies operate, Unger shows that, on the good morality that we already accept, the fatally unhelpful behavior is monstrously wrong. By uncovering the eminently sensible ethics that we've already embraced fully, and by confronting us with empirical facts and with easily followed instructions for lessening serious suffering appropriately and effectively, Unger's book points the way to a compassionate new moral philosophy.