Why don't we give more?
In Peter Singer (ed.) The life you can save: Acting now to end world poverty, New York, 2009, pp. 45–62
Abstract
Human prosocial behavior is significantly influenced by psychological and evolutionary constraints that often conflict with abstract moral reasoning. The “identifiable victim effect” demonstrates that individuals are more likely to provide aid when presented with a single, recognizable person in need rather than statistical representations of mass suffering. This preference is rooted in the dual-process model of cognition, where the “affective system” triggers immediate emotional responses to specific stories while the “deliberative system” relies on slower, logical processing of data. Furthermore, parochialism—an evolutionary legacy of small-group survival—limits altruistic impulses to kin or local cohorts, often resulting in indifference toward geographically distant populations. Futility thinking and the diffusion of responsibility also inhibit generosity; individuals are less inclined to contribute when they perceive their aid as a negligible proportion of a vast problem or when they observe a lack of participation from their peers. Additionally, the conceptual priming of money promotes self-sufficiency and increases social distance, further suppressing charitable impulses. While these psychological tendencies are products of human evolution, they lack moral justification in a globalized society where technology and resources enable effective remote intervention. Recognizing and consciously counteracting these cognitive biases is essential for aligning human behavior with objective moral principles regarding global poverty and aid. – AI-generated abstract.
Quotes from this work
My students often ask me if I think their parents did wrong to pay the $44,000 per year that it costs to send them to Princeton. I respond that paying that much for a place at an elite university is not justified unless it is seen as an investment in the future that will benefit not only one’s child, but others as well. An outstanding education provides students with the skills, qualifications, and understanding to do more for the world than would otherwise be the case. It is good for the world as a whole if there are more people with these qualities. Even if going to Princeton does no more than open doors to jobs with higher salaries, that, too, is a benefit that can be spread to others, as long as after graduating you remain firm in the resolve to contribute a percentage of that salary to organizations working for the poor, and spread this idea among your highly paid colleagues. The danger, of course, is that your colleagues will instead persuade you that you can’t possibly drive anything less expensive than a BMW and that you absolutely must live in an impressively large apartment in one of the most expensive parts of town.