Pippa’s dilemma: the moral demands of affluence

Last week ABC’s Life Matters ran an intriguing segment on their ‘Modern Dilemma’ series, which could pose a serious challenge to us all. This was Pippa’s dilemma, as presented by Natasha Mitchell.

I would dearly love to re-visit some of the great art galleries of Europe. I have no doubt this would be a very enriching experience for me personally. I have been able to save enough to make this overseas trip, about $6,000.

But here’s the rub. 

I could spend the money in this purely self-indulgent way and travel abroad. I could argue that I already do my fair share towards alleviating world problems, by giving 10% of my aged pension (my only income) to charity, by reducing my consumption of animals by 90%, by conserving energy usage, recycling, driving less, walking more and so on, (none of which, I should add, has caused me any hardship).

I could genuinely claim that the travel is for a high spiritual purpose.

Alternatively, I could choose to give away these surplus funds in the belief that, if enough other people did likewise, it would certainly help alleviate the suffering of some of our fellow human beings who we know to be in much more desperate need than ourselves.

By doing so, I would also avoid further burdening our planet by embarking on unnecessary air travel that pollutes our environment and unsustainably uses up precious limited resources.

Years ago I would not have given this matter a second thought. I would have felt entitled to spend my money as I liked. But now my conscience won’t let me do it so easily.

Damon Young, a guest panelist, began by describing Pippa as a ‘secular saint’ but also made an impassioned plea for the value of art, its potentially profound effects on the individual, its vital importance to society and its need to be supported.

He got closer to her dilemma when he described Kevin Carter’s Pulitzer prizewinning photo of a starving child in Africa being shadowed by a vulture – a profoundly moving image, considered to be of great aesthetic value. However, he agreed with philosopher Munroe Beardsley that the life of that child was of infinitely greater significance than any aesthetic experience we may get from viewing such an image.

Doris McIlwain, the other guest panelist, felt that in some way Pippa was asking them to come between her and her conscience. She agreed with her that there was no real argument against saving lives versus flitting around the globe to view artworks. But she thought there was a good question here about the limits of personal sacrifice for others. A person also needs to invest in their own self-flourishing, to enhance their own being and not sacrifice too much.

Reading Pippa’s later comments on the website, it is clear that she values art just as much as Damon and that she is very committed to enhancing her own being. For Pippa, this pilgrimage to the sacred sites, which hold the greatest works of art ever created, would clearly be a profound spiritual experience. It would enlarge her own being immeasurably and would most likely have significant flow-on effects for others.

But how should she weigh this against her equally strong compassion for those suffering souls much less well off than herself? Particularly when also confronted by her clear awareness of the scale of the environmental problems facing the planet, for which she feels partially responsible?

Socrates may have been right when he said that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ but Pippa’s dilemma exemplifies the profound difficulties of living out such a conviction in the modern world. In a sense she is, as Doris suggests, the living embodiment of what Garrett Cullity describes in his book as ‘The Moral Demands of Affluence’.

In a provocative essay written over 40 years ago, Peter Singer suggested the following principle may be of some help: if it is within our power to act to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then we have a moral obligation do so.

To give his example: if one is walking past a shallow pond and sees a child drowning, one ought to wade in and pull the child out. This might mean ruining an expensive pair of fashionable shoes. But most of us would accept that this is insignificant compared to the death of a child.

While everyone would agree with the above example, the implications are profound and radical, as Singer recognised:

If acted upon…our lives, our society and our world would be fundamentally changed. For the principle takes, firstly, no account of proximity or distance. It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away…

Singer asks whether it should make any difference if there are other bystanders who also see but do nothing. He concludes:

One has only to ask this question to see the absurdity of the view that numbers lessen obligation. It is a view that is an ideal excuse for inactivity; unfortunately, most of the major evils – poverty, overpopulation, pollution (and, one might add, asylum-seekers, environmental degradation, cruelty to animals, climate change)– are problems in which everyone is almost equally involved.

During the program, Damon made the point that, although people would admire Pippa if she chose to give the money to charity rather than spend it on an overseas trip, no one could expect this of her. She could not be judged harshly for not doing so, because in his view there was no moral duty on her, or any of us, to act in this way.

As Singer points out, however, this misconceives the nature of our moral obligations. Her giving should not be regarded as charity.

People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed the alternative does not occur to them.)

This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified.

When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look ‘well-dressed’ we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we continued to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so we would be preventing another person from starving…

To do so is not charitable or generous. Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers or theologians have called “super-erogatory” – an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it would be wrong not to do so.

Although most charities support the ‘charity’ model and appeal to donors’ generosity, Singer’s view is supported by those agencies like ActionAid which are committed to a ‘rights’ based model, where giving arises out of a moral obligation to recognise the basic human rights of others. On this view, giving is simply doing the right thing. Not to give when you can, and when it would involve no sacrifice of anything of comparable moral significance, would simply be wrong.

So the question arises: what possible argument could someone in Pippa’s situation advance to justify spending the money on this trip abroad? Can it be argued that art or the benefits of travel or, indeed, the enjoyment of any other similarly pleasurable activity, could ever have a comparable moral significance to the suffering of others? What moral significance could her own enjoyment of life or personal flourishing have?

It is clear from Pippa’s comments online that she believes that great art, literature and music, have a very high moral significance for her. In a sense, they constitute her being, along with her personal attachments to others and to nature. They ground her moral concerns. They seem integral to her leading ‘a good life’ which, according to ancient wisdom, involves a search for ‘the Good, the Beautiful and the True’.

Pippa’s journey could well be characterized as a kind of modern secular pilgrimage, no less sacred than a religious one. By engaging in such an

activity we honour our ancestors and their great creative achievements, which can only be kept alive by people like Pippa embracing them and living out their life in the community in response to them. A personal investment in such an activity is a profound moral good that should not be sacrificed lightly.

If this is so, how could the value of such a life-enhancing experience be weighed against the value of alleviating another person’s suffering?

The answer to this is: it cannot. There is no way to calculate it. This was the rub for Pippa. And this is where I think the well-intentioned advice of the panel and listeners may have let her down by pretending that you can calculate it and thereby arrive at some balance or compromise. Such an approach serves only to exacerbate the dilemma.

There is an assumption here that these are essentially distinct realms of value. On the one hand, there are moral values that must be observed but, it is suggested, there are also aesthetic values that can be disconnected from ethical considerations. And sometimes we are entitled to prefer these at the expense of our moral values.

This reminds me of the claims some moral philosophers make for other distinct realms of value, such as morality on the one hand and political duty to the community on the other.  Politicians frequently claim that they are entitled and sometimes duty bound to engage in discretionary wars without moral justification if it serves the community’s interests.

Apart from setting up false dichotomies, the problem remains: by what standards are we to judge the choices we make except by reference to our most deeply held values?

In Pippa’s circumstances, what can we do?

I am reminded of the exhortation, so contrary to ‘left-brain’ problem solving: Don’t just do something. Stand there!

It is here that Pippa’s own advice to herself is so instructive. She speaks for a life of integrity that transcends such dichotomies. She invokes the ancient concept of sitting with your conscience.

Ironically, she is reminded of this through her engagement with a great religious work of art. But it is important, I think, not to confuse conscience with its traditional religious connotations. Religions did not invent and do not own conscience, any more than they invented or own our basic moral values. Both are inherent in our common humanity.

Whether religious, agnostic or atheist, we all have a conscience – that inner voice which tells us what is the right thing to do, and which we ignore at our peril.

So Pippa’s advice to herself could also have meaning for us.

Follow your conscience… It has brought you to this dilemma. And it will lead you out of it.

…your conscience is the primary source and trajectory of any meaningful personal flourishing for you.

If your conscience is uneasy about a course of action, stop and listen to it. Wait rather than try to push through by some act of willpower.

Allow the mystery inherent in such a dilemma to deepen in you.

Be open to surprise. Something might come out of left field that resolves the immediate dilemma and leads you forward in unexpected ways.

This is in fact what happened to Pippa and led her to a surprising resolution of her dilemma that was less ‘saintly’ but nonetheless admirable.

However, if you want to know what she did you will need to go to the Life Matters website. It is a wonderful program to listen to – radio at its best. And the few comments deserve to be read in full.

This is the kind of sensitive, collaborative and serious engagement with fundamental issues that makes the ABC great. Life Matters…well done!