I just read a brilliant article by Peter Singer, a controversial ethicist who teaches at Princeton University. The article appeared in recent issue of the New York Times Sunday Magazine.
The article begins with the story of a Brazilian woman who was given a $1,000 dollars to persuade a homeless boy to follow her to an address she has been given. She is told the boy will be adopted but later someone tells her he will probably be killed and his organs will be sold for transplants. Singer points out we would all be horrified and we feel she should try to save this boy's life -- which she tries to do.
The second story Peter Singer tells -- a hypothetical story -- is about a man who owns a beautiful antique car that he cannot afford to insure. This car is his pride & joy and it is so valuable that he plans to sell it to finance his retirement. He parks the car at the end of a railway line, walks away and when he turns back he is faced with an unbelievable dilemma. An out of control railroad is speeding down the tracks and is about to kill an innocent child. If he throws a switch and derails the train, the child's life will be saved, but his precious possession, his retirement pay, his beloved ancient automobile will be destroyed. He must act instantly. He doesn't throw the switch. The child is killed.
Singer's point is that we rich Westerners face that dilemma daily. According to one calculation, $200 dollars in donations would help a sickly 2 year old transform into a healthy 6 year. Just $200 out of our pocket would derail that train that will kill that sickly child. If we pull the switch, derail the train, we can save the life of that two year old--and the cost to us is not our life savings or a precious antique car. The cost to us is a measly $200--one night out on the town for some of us.
Singer makes that point over & over. How much is $200 to us? How much will it alter the quality of our life? It will not change our life if we lose $200; it will save the life of a child: literally. If we do not give $200, that child will die. If we give $200 that child will live.
Singer is very careful with his figures. He knows that some of the money will go to finance the charity. He knows that some charities are not as efficient as others. Singer names two charities in the article--and he gives his readers 800 numbers. The two charities are Unicef and Oxfam. The phone number of Unicef is 800 367-5437, Oxfam America is 800 693-2687.
Singer's argument is unbelievably powerful. How many of us cannot part with $200. Of course some of you young listeners my not be able to. You are young, on your way up. You cannot afford it. But most of us adults can afford it -- and yes, I did phone & contribute $200 -- and I was one of many: both charities spoke of a flood of calls they received after the article -- and they would recognize that the calls were a result of the article. After all, and all of a sudden, thousands of people call and donate exactly $200. That's bizarre -- and there must be a reason.
There was. We can afford to part with $200. If we don't, a child will most certainly die. If we do, a child will live -- and most of us wont even notice that we are $200 poorer. The phone numbers again: Unicef, 800 367-5437. Oxfam America 800 693 2687.
Copyright © 2004 Henry Morgenstein