Pacific Lutheran University

All these questions were lobbed and addressed, one by one, by Peter Singer,a world renowned philosopher who is credited with philosophically launching the animal rights movement 30 years ago with his book “Animal Liberation.”

Singer talked to a larger crowd Monday night in Chris Knutzen Hall on the topic "Global Poverty: What Are Our Obligations?" But Monday afternoon, Singer traded ideas with a much more intimate group of about 20 students and professors over lunch in the University Center.

One of the first questions posed to Singer had nothing to do with animal rights or world poverty, his specialties. Instead, it focused on the most effective way to control drug addiction, and more specifically, heroin addiction. Singer noted that much of the abuse of drugs like heroin comes from the very fact that they are illegal. A pilot project of legalizing the drug in a given locale may show whether it can be controlled and its abuse limited.

The questions then turned to the well-traveled path of poverty and animal rights.

One student noted that her father doesn’t give money to panhandlers, but offers to take them out to a meal instead. It was a policy Singer agreed with.

“I’ve talked with panhandlers before and they’ve told me that just giving them money doesn’t do much,” Singer said. “They like people to notice them, even with a smile. The worst reaction is when people pretend that they don’t exist.”

On a global scale, thinking the United States is to blame for all the poverty in the world is “overly simplistic,” he said.

Sometimes drought, civil war or simply being a land-locked nation has a greater influence on the nation’s fortunes than anything done or not done by the U.S. However, that doesn’t mean the industrialized nations are off the hook, he added.

The release of pollutants into the atmosphere, which in turn caused global warming and the seas to flood farmland around Bangladesh, can be traced back to actions in the developed countries such as the U.S., he noted.

In his interviews and books, Singer has espoused that those in the upper 10 percent of America’s wealthiest families could alleviate much of the world’s extreme poverty by giving a small percentage of their annual income to charities. In interviews, Singer said he gives 20 percent of his income away.

For those of us who are not billionaires, or even millionaires, news reports of non-profit or philanthropic agencies wasting money shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to give, Singer said. There are ways to find out how much an agency actually gives to the causes it promotes. Even if those figures are wrong, a small amount of money, such as $2 for a bottle of soda, can still make a huge difference in some of the world’s poorest countries.

He advised the students and professors to choose their causes wisely.

“If you had $10,000, you need to ask whether it would be better put to use buying bed nets against malaria, or trying to change U.S. policy regarding farm exports to developing countries,” he said.

Singer was obviously in favor of the bed nets. The conversation then turned to animal rights.

Singer seemed to be willing to give some slack to those carnivores unable or unwilling to give up their burgers. A vegetarian himself, Singer said that his choice to avoid eating meat came after seeing how animals were treated in the U.S. factory farms.

While it’s good to buy local, and support organic produce or meat products, Singer seemed dubious that any animal bred, fed and slaughtered for mass public consumption can really claim a quality life or a humane death.

“It’s difficult to find an animal that is living in that ethical standard,” he said.

When asked at the end of the lunch discussion how he measures his own life and impact, Singer didn’t have to think long about his answer.

“My goal is not just to be a good philosopher, but to make a difference in this world.”