Psychological salience and moral action

[lulzkiller]

Now, first off, this isn't intended to come of as moral preaching of any sort. I do, however, find the topic extremely intriguing and important.

I read Peter Unger's fantastic "Living High & Letting Die" a few weeks back and his daring thesis has me at least partially convinced. Basically, Unger spends some 200 pages giving an account of why we feel that it's horribly immoral not to help an ailing stranger whom we meet on our way, even if it incurs a significant cost to ourselves (say, picking up someone with an open wound even if it means destroying your new $10,000 leather upholstery), whereas most of us don't think that much of trashing yet another envelope from UNICEF after reading that for just $100 dollars, we could probably save a few needy children's lives.
Unger's basic charge, I believe, is that various psychological phenomena influence our judgments of the moral value of some given conduct. These psychological phenomena include, among others, things such as mentally grouping yourself with the victim(s), as well as the salience of the suffering person(s) (i.e. reading a letter about someone 15,000 km away vs. seeing someone with an open wound; the latter appears much more vivid to you) and the perceived urgency/regularity of a situation ("Kids die everyday in Somalia or Congo; whereas this guy is literally dying right here in front of me, now!"). Now as you have probably figured out, Unger doesn't really believe that stuff like physical distance or vividness ultimately matter when it comes to the moral seriousness of some act or situation. If you accept this conclusion, the costs to yourself can easily become what most of us would consider pretty serious (As in the tens of percents of your income - For a quick comparison: America officially donates 0.2% of its Gross National Income through taxes; the average American donates somewhere around 1% out of his own pocket to charitable causes (many of them, I'd suppose, to domestic poverty relief).

Do you agree with what I consider to be Unger's basic charge?
If so, do you act on it? If you do agree with his charge, but don't act on it, why not? How much do you think is reasonable for you or any other relatively well-off person to give to the truly needy.
If you don't agree, please give me some of your thoughts about the relationship between morality and self-interestedness (or anything else that you think relevant, really).

If you find yourself intrigued by my shabby account of Unger's work and willing to run the risk of reading something that might change your views on something that could have consequences for both your own life and for other people's, then read the book! I think it's intended for philosophers mostly, but I consider it readable by the group of "generally educated and interested reader". I'm not a philosopher. I've never taken a course in philosophy except a pathetic one in high school. It probably helps if you're just a bit attuned to the philosophical methodology.

 

[Legerity]

It seems quite clear that psychological processes and distortions will influence any sort of behavior. Out of sight, out of mind

I don't think anybody has an obligation to do anything. Giving to others is an opportunity to feel love and gratitude for what you have yourself. Or it can just be an empty gesture done out of guilt. And the consequences of our actions seems to be based not only on the action itself but the spirit behind it.

Looking at things completely objectively, if nobody kept more than a few million dollars to themselves, there'd be a whole shitload of cash for the rest of the world. I don't think there's an obligation; although I do consider a lot of people to be quite greedy. There's no reason for any one person to have billions of dollars. It's silly.

But to each their own; the person who is so empty that he the needs to stockpile billions of dollars is probably just as dead inside as the person starving in another country.

 

[lulzkiller]

Thanks so much for replying to what must be one of my first threads here at Bluelight!

I might be mistaken in this, but when you say 'to each their own' and 'I don't think anyone has an obligation to do anything', would you consider yourself satisfied with the epithet 'moral relativist'? It appears to me that you think morality is ultimately a subjective matter that one must figure out for oneself, but, at the same time, you say that 'looking at things completely objectively... there's no reason for any one person to have billions of dollars.'

In making an actual reply (and assuming that you endorse some sort of moral relativism), I'm not really sure I'm very comfortable with the idea of moral relativism (i.e., my conception of right, wrong and duty is just as good as yours) or skepticism (denying that morality exists as such), because they both seem to have pretty worrisome implications. If each really is to his own, there is nothing to my claim that Hitler or Stalin were immoral men with no respect for human life. (This is, of course, a pretty radical example.)