text stringlengths 0 1.71k |
|---|
It is important to get the status of this third version of the |
objection clear. Its accuracy as a prediction of human behaviour |
is quite compatible with the argument that we are obliged to |
give to the point at which by giving more we sacrifice something |
of comparable moral significance. What would follow from the |
objection is that public advocacy of this standard of giving is |
undesirable. It would mean that in order to do the maximum |
to reduce absolute poverty, we should advocate a standard |
lower than the amount we think people really ought to give. |
Of course we ourselves - those of us who accept the original |
argument, with its hig1;ler standard - would know that we ought |
to do more than we publicly propose people ought to do, and |
we might actually give more than we urge others to give. There |
is no inconsistency here, since in both our private and our public |
behaviour we are trying to do what will most reduce absolute |
poverty. |
For a consequentialist, this apparent conflict between public |
and private morality is always a possibility, and not in itself an |
indication that the underlying principle is wrong. The consequences |
of a principle are one thing, the consequences of publicly |
advocating it another. A variant of this idea is already |
acknowledged by the distinction between the intuitive and crit- |
245 |
Practical Ethics |
icallevels of morality, of which I have made use in previous |
chapters. If we think of principles that are suitable for the intuitive |
level of morality as those that should be generally advocated, |
these are the principles that, when advocated, will give |
rise to the best consequences. Where overseas aid is concerned, |
those will be the principles that le-ad to largest amount being |
given by the affluent to the poor. |
Is it true that the standard set by our argument is so high as |
to be counterproductive? There is not much evidence to go by, |
but discussions of the argument, with students and others have |
led me to think it might be. Yet, the conventionally accepted |
standard - a few coins in a collection tin when one is waved |
under your nose - is obviously far too low. What level should |
we advocate? Any figure will be arbitrary, but there may be |
something to be said for a round percentage of one's income |
like, say, 10 per cent - more than a token donation, yet not so |
high as to be beyond all but saints. (This figure has the additional |
advantage of being reminiscent of the ancient tithe, or tenth, |
that was traditionally given to the church, whose responsibilities |
included care of the poor in one's local community. Perhaps |
the idea can be revived and applied to the global community.) |
Some families, of course, will find 10 per cent a considerable |
strain on their finances. Others may be able to give more without |
difficulty. No figure should be advocated as a rigid minimum |
or maximum; but it seems safe to advocate that those earning |
average or above average incomes in affluent societies, unless |
they have an unusually large number of dependents or other |
special needs, oUght to give a tenth of their income to reducing |
absolute poverty. By any reasonable ethical standards this is the |
minimum we ought to do, and we do wrong if we do less. |
246 |
9 |
INSIDERS AND OUTSIDERS |
THE SHELTER |
I T is February 2002, and the world is taking stock of the |
damage done by the nuclear war in the Middle East towards |
the close of the previous year. The global level of radioactivity |
now and for about eight years to come is so high that only those |
living in fallout shelters can be confident of surviving in reasonable |
health. For the rest, who must breathe unfiltered air |
and consume food and water with high levels of radiation, the |
prospects are grim. Probably 10 per cent will die of radiation |
sickness within the next two months; another 30 per cent are |
expected to develop fatal forms of cancer within five years; and |
even the remainder will have rates of cancer ten times higher |
than normal, while the risk that their children will be malformed |
is fifty times greater than before the war. |
The fortunate ones, of course, are those who were far-sighted |
enough to buy a share in tl;le fallout shelters built by real-estate |
speculators as international tensions rose in the late 1990s. Most |
of these shelters were designed as underground villages, each |
with enough accommodation and supplies to provide for the |
needs of 10,000 people for twenty years. The villages are selfgoverning, |
with democratic constitutions that were agreed to |
in advance. They also have sophisticated security systems that |
enable them to admit to the shelter whoever they decide to |
admit, and keep out all others. |
The news that it will not be necessary to stay in the shelters |
for much more than eight years has naturally been greeted with |
247 |
Practical Ethics |
joy by the members of an underground community called Fairhaven. |
But it has also led to the first serious friction among |
them. For above the shaft that leads down to Fairhaven, there |
are thousands of people who are not investors in a shelter. These |
people can be seen, and heard, through television cameras installed |
at the entrance. They are pleading to be admitted. They |
know that ifthey can get into a shelter quickly, they will escape |
most of the consequences of exposure to radiation. At first, |
before it was known how long it would be until it was safe to |
return to the outside, these pleas had virtually no support from |
within the shelter. Now, however, the case for admitting at least |
some of them has become much stronger. Since the supplies |
need last only eight years, they will stretch to more than double |
the number of people at present in the shelters. Accommodation |
presents only slightly greater problems: Fairhaven was designed |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.