Peter Singer, Charity and Religious Millionaires

During a course in moral philosophy in college I was introduced to the maverick outlandish philosophy of Peter Singer. He holds incredibly fascinating viewpoints and really takes moral relativism and utilitarianism to its extreme, though some would argue its logical conclusion.

The article we discussed was one he wrote in 1972 called "Famine, Affluence and Morality" (summary here and news article here). Briefly put, he argues that we should donate as much as necessary to reduce famine and poverty, evils which we agree should be reduced, "at least up to the point at which by giving more one would begin to cause serious suffering for oneself and one's dependents". That isn't an easy point to define, but the argument goes as follows; faced with buying the latest CD or clothing, or giving that same $15 to a child that was dying outside the music store and needs only $15 to live, most of us would give the money to the child and forego the CD (and then we would go home and burn it off bit-torrent, but that's for a different post). Now the geographical distance between the child dying outside the record store and the child dying of starvation in Tsunami-hit Asia or Aids and poverty ravaged Africa shouldn't make any difference from a moral point of view. Singer calls this the "Pond Case".

I definitely understand his approach and agree with it theoretically. There are various arguments against it but I'm not convinced by them. I'm also not going to delve into the practical issues per se of solving poverty, disease and famine. Relevant points but not for here. I am also going to stay away from the issue as to whether the government should enforce this morality, though I touched on it here.

As a religious Jew, I am looking for some philosophical answers in the Jewish tradition. Firstly, we believe "Aniyey Ircha Kodmim" - the poor of your town take precedence. I understand this idea intuitively and emotionally, but cannot argue for it philosophically without resorting to the safety net theory.

Secondly, we hold that one should give 10% to charity, and no more than 20%. The argument is made that giving away more could cause us to become impoverished ourselves. ("An unusually wealthy person is permitted to give more than a fifth of his money to Tzedakah, since doing so will most likely not cause him to become impoverished (based on TOSFOS in Bava Kama 9b, DH Ileima"). The last link has a number of sources that imply one could (should?) give away more than a fifth.

Nowadays, thank G-d, there are many wealthy, G-d fearing Jews. Hashem provides well for some people. Successful in business, they give generously to charity. I cannot criticise them. I am not in their shoes (leather Guccis?). But I think about Singer's argument, and I ask - do these people need the latest car, the fanciest clothes, the biggest house? Do we really think that if they donated half their earnings and had to live off half a million they would become poor? Surely (don't call me shirley - film ref anyone?) they can survive like normal people on a normal salary, and they can do even more good by donating more of their income to worthy causes? How can one justify the latest $100,000 Lexus when a $20,000 car gets you wherever you need to go just as well, but in less style, and that $80,000 you save can support families in Kollel, buy food for Pesach, help towards curing cancer, save thousands of lives in Africa, etc etc? How does a religious person justify to G-d that Lexus?

I'm not sure if I totally follow this theory myself and whether I would do so if I was a millionaire (any volunteers willing to help me test that theory?), but I don't do anything extravagant or own anything ostentatious as far as I know. I holiday at a decent but basic level, when I eat out I go to good but cheap places most of the time, yet I am sure that people could level the same criticism of me, do I need to holiday? eat out? purchase CDs?

I don't have the answer. Do you?

TRK