Saturday, April 18, 2009
The Life You Can Save
Alright, just one last Peter Singer reference! In this Bloggingheads, George Mason economist Tyler Cowen grills Peter Singer on what the best way might be to improve the lives of the poor. For those of you in the original Lazarus group, you already know Peter Singer's line of argument. Two things that especially jumped out at me: 1) at around 3:15, you'll notice Cowen completely stumps singer on question on immigration and development. What in one experts opinion is the best way to combat poverty isn't even on the others radar! 2) Cowen (I forget where) suggests simply wiring money to poor people we've met on our travels. It's strange, because its just not something I would have given myself permission to do before. This is a bit of a sore spot for me (I have a tremendous story of being ripped off in my first four days in Egypt), since it really reminds me of how easy it is for me to get around, and how easy it is for me to "extract" things from other places without meaning to. It's kind of stunning how I often think of the international poor as billions of people who just want to send me a fraudulent email. Anyway, hopefully more comments on this later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm now officially a Tyler Cowen fan. I get excited when professionals who are respected in their field advocate for immigrants and immigration and who connect the reduction of worldwide poverty to the support of immigration (which will hopefully be my own life's work). I think the reason his view is probably not widely circulated is that its not very popular to lobby for widespread immigration; there's too much fear that there's not enough to go around (AKA protectionism).
ReplyDeleteAlex - question - above you are talking about giving money through wires and you say this reminds you of how easy it is for you to get around and "extract" things from other places without meaning to. Could you clarify what you mean by this and the connection between wiring money and your following comment? I'm confused.
1) Yeah, and I think Tyler Cowen would strike many activist types as an unlikely ally: a right of center, free market economist. I have only just started learning about these viewpoints, but I think the idea of a "free labor market" is actually a very powerful one that immigration advocates can use to co-opt some of their opponents, conservatives in particular.
ReplyDelete2)Yeah, sorry, that is pretty unclear. I guess I should divide this point into two related but separate points. Whether on short mission trips or studying abroad, the reason I always gave myself for the trip was that I was going to help people. Once I got there, I realized that I had a very large interest in telling people at home about all the cool things I was doing in X country. I found myself wandering around, almost trolling for stories. I could never speak to Egyptians, for example, without thinking about how I would relay the story to my friends at home. In this sense, I think I was trying to "extract" something from their culture, the way you would a mineral resource, so I could put it to use for my own benefit upon my return home. I see the idea of taking a chance and wiring money to a person you don't know very well as a way to compensate, in a small way, for my attitude in those situations. Thinking about it, I realized how very, deeply suspicious I was of the recipient I had in mind. This thought is still incomplete, but is it beginning to make sense?
Yes, it makes much more sense. Thanks for clarifying. I think your saying this is an honest reflection on a tendency many of us have.
ReplyDeleteI finally got through the interview, and here's a response to a section of it:
I think Tyler Cowen asks an interesting question that’s worth discussing (21:30):
“How far do those obligations extend (to give money to other people)? Is it a nice thing to do or are we morally required to do so?” Tyler summarizes Singer’s previous response to this question, which is “people are more committed to their own projects than giving to other people and we need to work within these constraints.” Tyler seems to think an ideal world would have to exist before these two pursuits collide. I think Farmer is a prime counterexample to Tyler's claim.
I think Tyler's question is interesting because if “it’s a nice thing to do” then we can feel good about ourselves by doing something/anything at all. If we are “morally required to do so,” this intensifies the obligation. Then to take it one step further – if, as believers, we are mandated by God to care for the poor and oppressed, then is anything less than “spending ourselves in behalf of the hungry” (Isaiah 58:10) glorifying to God? Is "obligation" a word that should be applied to faith-based motivations? Furthermore, should we expect humanity as a whole, regardless of faith preferences, to do the same?