Hey everyone,
I started thinking about this after reading ''Strangers Drowning'' (definitely has my recommendation) In some of the personal stories therein described people struggle with spending time on personally meaningful activities that don’t have obvious external rewards (like reading for pleasure, which is something I relate to). That led me to revisit Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality and the broader Effective Altruism framework.
Singer argues that if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it. This seems really compelling at first. But here’s what’s puzzling me: why is there such a strong moral focus on how we use our money, while other parts of life like time spent with loved ones, emotional experiences, or personal hobbies are mostly left out of this moral scrutiny?
If Singer’s principle is really consistent, shouldn’t all aspects of our lives be subject to the same kind of moral evaluation? Why carve out money as the main battleground for moral demands and exempt so much else? Without a clear justification for this divide, isn’t the whole framework kind of arbitrary or incomplete?
So my question is: does Singer, or anyone else in Effective Altruism, offer a solid explanation or solution for where and why these “carve outs” exist outside of strict necessity? For example the technical term for this is supererogation which I will be reading a few books on next week but I am not going to be saving lifes with reading this stuff. So as I am consciously forgoing efforts that would help save or improve other people their life's because of personal projects would this be considered blameworthy?
I’d really appreciate any thoughts or pointers to relevant discussions or readings! :)