" ‘[Peter Singer’s] asking the wrong question,’ [Schiller] recalled thinking at the time. She wanted to know: How could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space?’"
I think Schiller's asking the wrong question. $750 million would save (let's say) 10,000 poor children's lives. So far, no value statements, just plain fact. At that point,…
" ‘[Peter Singer’s] asking the wrong question,’ [Schiller] recalled thinking at the time. She wanted to know: How could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space?’"
I think Schiller's asking the wrong question. $750 million would save (let's say) 10,000 poor children's lives. So far, no value statements, just plain fact. At that point, anyone, Catholic or utilitarian, who has an opinion, one way or the other, about how to spend that money, has put a numerical value on a holy space.
One more silly, shallow criticism of Singer. They are legion.
It’s just a silly question from the beginning. There’s tons of wealth that could be distributed to help 10,000 people. But the focus on the Cathedral is due to one simple thing: Singer doesn’t like it.
A quick google search tells me that Singer has apparently, at the very least, told people not to donate to Princeton or Yale (Singer has been associated with both):
“Princeton has an endowment, at the time of writing, of US$21 billion and Yale of US$23.9 billion … the money you donate to one of them could probably do more good elsewhere.”
So, no, Singer does not merely criticise donations to places that he does not personally like, if that’s the accusation you are making. He is considerably more philosophically consistent than that.
Thanks. I guess the big difference is that Notre Dame is open to all human beings, whereas Princeton is open mostly only to the American elite. So it is more ethically pressing -- much more, I'd wager -- to redistribute the Princeton endowment than the money that goes into fixing one of humanity's most beautiful buildings.
But it isn't being distributed, and it's not going to be distributed, especially if people don't raise questions like Singer's. Arguably the purpose of his question is to make Notre Dame supporters say: "But why Notre Dame? There's plenty of money to feed starving children." Singer: "Oh yes? Then why are they still starving?" Notre Dame supporters: "Um ... well ... "
" ‘[Peter Singer’s] asking the wrong question,’ [Schiller] recalled thinking at the time. She wanted to know: How could anyone put a numerical value on a holy space?’"
I think Schiller's asking the wrong question. $750 million would save (let's say) 10,000 poor children's lives. So far, no value statements, just plain fact. At that point, anyone, Catholic or utilitarian, who has an opinion, one way or the other, about how to spend that money, has put a numerical value on a holy space.
One more silly, shallow criticism of Singer. They are legion.
It’s just a silly question from the beginning. There’s tons of wealth that could be distributed to help 10,000 people. But the focus on the Cathedral is due to one simple thing: Singer doesn’t like it.
PS - I happen to know that when Singer spent a sabbatical year at the Sorbonne, he went to Mass at Notre Dame every morning. So there.
Has Singer ever said what his employer Princeton should do with its endowment?
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princetons-endowment-2024-39-return-lags-behind-peers
A quick google search tells me that Singer has apparently, at the very least, told people not to donate to Princeton or Yale (Singer has been associated with both):
“Princeton has an endowment, at the time of writing, of US$21 billion and Yale of US$23.9 billion … the money you donate to one of them could probably do more good elsewhere.”
Quoted here: https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/big-blind-spots-peter-singers-philanthro-capitalism
So, no, Singer does not merely criticise donations to places that he does not personally like, if that’s the accusation you are making. He is considerably more philosophically consistent than that.
Thanks. I guess the big difference is that Notre Dame is open to all human beings, whereas Princeton is open mostly only to the American elite. So it is more ethically pressing -- much more, I'd wager -- to redistribute the Princeton endowment than the money that goes into fixing one of humanity's most beautiful buildings.
Probably.
But it isn't being distributed, and it's not going to be distributed, especially if people don't raise questions like Singer's. Arguably the purpose of his question is to make Notre Dame supporters say: "But why Notre Dame? There's plenty of money to feed starving children." Singer: "Oh yes? Then why are they still starving?" Notre Dame supporters: "Um ... well ... "