Beneficence, Duty and Distance

According to Peter Singer, virtually all of us would be forced by adequate reflection on our own convictions to embrace a radical conclusion about giving. The following principle, he says, is " surely undeniable, " at least once we reflect on secure convictions concerning rescue, as in his famous case of the drowning toddler. The Principle of Sacrifice. " If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do so. " 1 Combined with further, uncontroversial premises, this principle leads to a demanding imperative to give which I will call the radical conclusion: Everyone has a duty not to spend money on luxuries or frills, and to use the savings due to abstinence to help those in dire need. For example, Singer condemns buying clothes " not to keep ourselves warm but to look 'well-dressed' " (p. 235), and insists that everyone who is not needy has a duty to donate until donating more would I am indebted to the Editors of Philosophy & Public Affairs who provided extremely helpful criticisms and suggestions in response to earlier versions of this article. I have also benefited from the insightful comments of Unadorned page numbers will refer to this article. Singer quickly adds that " ought, morally " is meant to single out a dictate of moral duty, " not an act that it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. " papa_018.qxd 7/15/04 7:26 PM Page 357