This conversation gets wacky but I support the idea of doubting our moral intuitions. (If you view the video on the bloggingheads.tv site, you can have it play back at 1.4x speed.)
The discussion of the effectiveness of aid is something many of us struggle with. A great part of the conversation is the question of the relative benefit of being a generous giver with a low income or an (ungenerous) successful businessperson in the cellphone industry. I currently TA a course on economic development, and in my tutorials try to encourage my students to re-think what seems obvious about development. (Mostly the bits that 'feel good'.) The fact that NGOs and aid have played almost no part in lifting countries out of poverty, for example, is hard for most to accept.
Some highlights of the discussion:
- You see a child drowning in a pond, but saving her means ruining your expensive shoes. If it is unethical to do nothing, then isn't it unethical not to do something about preventable deaths of poor children worldwide?
- Peter Singer proposes that anyone below the 90th percentile donates at least 1% of income to charity (more for the upper 10%), and makes their adherence to this public (on a website).
- Immigration from poor to rich countries, Cowen argues, is the most effective poverty-reduction program we know of.
- Singer supports: Oxfam America, Givewell (site is down?), Kiva.
- Cowen supports "no-overhead giving" - if visiting a poor country, get some names of poor people you meet and send them money from home via Western Union. Instead of choosing what the poor need (a well, better roads) let them spend it according to their needs.
- It's better for society to be successful in a business that affects the poor (such as mobile phones) and donate nothing, than to donate a large portion of a small salary.
- That being said, there is value in admonishing the rich to give. (Once you have succeeded in business, nothing is stopping you from also donating large sums.)
- Genetic modification is creepy (this is not their point, it's mine).
- Two major drawbacks of utilitarian moral theory: it leads to highly demanding consequences that people reject; and unlike following a simple set of moral rules, you have to be informed about what effect your actions will take. (Giving to charity requires you to make some effort ensuring your money is well spent and useful.)
