We tend to put philosophy in a box. We agree with Descartes when he asserts that nothing (short of “cogito ergo sum”) can be proven to exist, but we still assume all reports from our senses to be valid. The inherent existentialism of philosophy gives mankind an excuse for not taking it seriously in practice; for putting up a sort of corpus callosum that allows communication but still generally isolates the intellectual and the pragmatic self. In his 2002 book entitled One World, Peter Singer argues for the abolition of this disconnect, specifically as it pertains to the political philosophy of third-world donation.
Signer is one of many academics who claims to be a utilitarian but one of a very minute few who actually supports utilitarian policy making and lifestyle choices. In One World, Singer makes a very simple argument: donation to third-world countries is not mere supererogation, but rather a morally obligatory duty. We must donate until the point that we could no longer live off of our remaining resources if we donated more. Deontologically this stance holds no weight, but from a Utilitarian perspective it is nearly infallible. Virtually all attempts to subvert it fail the cost-benefit analysis: national pride, sense of community or the drive to innovate, all while important, do not nearly outweigh the saving of millions from preventable diseases. The purchase of a first-world good will almost always provide less utility than the saving of third-world lives.
This book infatuates me because, while this was probably not Singer’s intention, it points out the inherent human disaffinity to true Utilitarianism. Signer forces society to own up to its beliefs: if you are a pure consequentialist than act on it. He takes political philosophy out of the esoterica and into the real world. The book serves as a sort of put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is of Utilitarianism. Singer argues you into an inescapable ultimatum: abandon all prior moral attachments or start donating.