The Chronicle: Colloquy: Responses

Singer makes a fundamental mistake when he argues that it is immoral for anyone to enjoy luxuries while the abject suffering of others could be diminished had we forgone such luxuries, and donated the money to charity. He is fundamentally wrong because he has no socioeconomic foundation for such an ethical claim. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in Economics to predict that sending all of our money to UNICEF of Oxfam, as he proposes, will not solve the problem of starvation in the long run. But Singer hits us on a personal level. We know that not everyone is going to send money, so while he is fundamentally wrong, the questions still haunt us: How much was that dinner? That car? That vacation? How much was it worth to you? Was it worth the death of a child? He claims it was not, and dares us to say otherwise. So far, I think no one has met his dare.

: -- Ryan Grim, Student, St. Mary's College of Maryland (posted 3/21, 12:43 p.m., E.S.T.)

previous response

next response

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.