It's a commonly highlighted problem that in order to live the most morally effective life that means expenditure on only your basic necessities for health & happiness, but I cannot honestly see how I can justify buying gifts or the likes for friends & family. But that would be very complicated indeed and lead to a superficially immoral image within my immediate social circle. May I say that I'm 18 so this problem isn't too big yet, but in years to come and especially when I move out and hopefully find myself a full time job, it will be expected of me. How can I justify this? And if not, what do I do? Many will like to say "yeah but your already doing enough" but I feel this is a sincere evasion of the truth and just an answer given because one feel's the backing of what most people want to believe and that it is easier and that it is superficially pleasing as a righteous way of living. But the reality is that it probably is not justified to give someone a trivial gift when that money could save lives or to go further reduce a vast amount of suffering. It simply seems highly immoral to me.

Donate to charity in their name.

If you give gifts to people, they often feel compelled to reciprocate. You could ask them to donate to effective charities of your choice in your name instead of giving you a gift.

But honestly, I think this thinking is wrong to begin with. 3 years from now, you'll regret having thought like this and then you'll do much less over your total future than you otherwise would have.

Instead you could pick the most effective charities and habitually donate 50 bucks each month without thinking about it deeply. For many casual "utilitarians", this will be more psychologically sustainable and therefore helpful in the long run. If you earn a lot or spend a lot on luxury, you could run the same approach with a bigger number.

Hedonic Treader wrote:If you give gifts to people, they often feel compelled to reciprocate. You could ask them to donate to effective charities of your choice in your name instead of giving you a gift.

But honestly, I think this thinking is wrong to begin with. 3 years from now, you'll regret having thought like this and then you'll do much less over your total future than you otherwise would have.

I would like to agree but I'd argue that this is an example of a satisfying evasion because the fact is that there is nothing stopping me from giving as much as I can and only satisfying my basic needs. I know there's a sense "yeah but there must an escape from this" but I feel that any arguments against giving as much as you literally can without dying can only be shown as absurd using modern western morals or something not to so utilitarian in it's logic. If you believe in maximzing happiness and minimizing suffering or even if you believe in equality & are against suffering (which is merely a socio-political set of values) you would probably have to conclude that by putting your own fear of the complications amidst your immediate social circle and so forth, you are allowing immense suffering to persist to satisfy yourself and the trivial gains of those around you. I simply can't see this as just under any even vaguely utilitarian moral rule set.

The demandingness of morality can be great. Singer in 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' agrees with you that morality requires giving until it hurts.

I appreciate your strong enthusiasm for reducing suffering. I would urge you to consider that giving to the point where you alienate yourself from society and family and friends may have seriously counterproductive consequences. First, it may be psychologically unsustainable, leading you to abaondon your project. This is the commonly mentioned issue in activist circles of burn out. Do what you can to avoid it. Second, in your zeal, you may lose your ability to win others to your cause. You'll almost certainly have a greater impact if you personally give less but can persuade others to join you than if you try to save the world alone. And on your view, having the greater impact is what's morally preferred, right?

My advice is to maintain your vigilance but try to keep perspective.

deanmullen wrote:I would like to agree but I'd argue that this is an example of a satisfying evasion because the fact is that there is nothing stopping me from giving as much as I can and only satisfying my basic needs.

Sure there is: Your evolved psychology as a selfish primate. Most parts of your brain are not optimized to maximize happiness over suffering in the entire universe. Some people may have the ability to turn themselves into selfless drones mentally, others don't. Most people don't. Not even Peter Singer gives as much as he can, and he has every strategic reason to set the highest possible bar.

deanmullen wrote:I simply can't see this as just under any even vaguely utilitarian moral rule set.

But utilitarianism doesn't care about justice, except to the degree to which the notion is useful.

I remember when I was just getting started in utilitarianism and I read something from Peter Singer about not giving gifts to people and I thought that was ludicrous. I now can see the logic behind it, but I still think it's a bad idea.

Not giving gifts has a host of negative instrumental effects:
1.) It decreases people's goodwill toward you.
2.) It makes utilitarianism look bad.
3.) It makes you burn out because you have less social connections.

Additionally, I think utilitarians should take more of a heuristic approach for utilitarian reasons. Even thinking of gifts in purely instrumental terms is already harmful from a utilitarian perspective.

Hedonic Treader wrote:Sure there is: Your evolved psychology as a selfish primate. Most parts of your brain are not optimized to maximize happiness over suffering in the entire universe. Some people may have the ability to turn themselves into selfless drones mentally, others don't. Most people don't. Not even Peter Singer gives as much as he can, and he has every strategic reason to set the highest possible bar.

Well that is holding you back but if you push against it, there is nothing physically stopping you. It is possible even if the human being would be far less happy & satisfied, as long as they don't break and lose it entirely and find ways to enjoy life for a limited time, they could do it. And I know Singer does not, but Singer though he is an absolutely inspirational and very moral individual, he is not a source of exactly how to live one's life.

Hedonic Treader wrote:But utilitarianism doesn't care about justice, except to the degree to which the notion is useful.

In response to this I would argue that that's what I meant by justice, as in what is right or utilitarian-istically justified. I'm simply saying that it is possible to do as much as you can. Of course if you did so much work for moral effectiveness that you became morbidly depressed then you would be rendered morally useless, but until you reached that real limit, I just see it would be morally obligatory to reach that limit. I don't want to agree with this, but I think if you put it into perspective, every step behind the true moral limit is allowing vast suffering to occur for another individual somewhere in the world (human or non-human). That is the main point I'm trying to make. I'm not begging everyone to do this, but I'm just saying if this is true, then at the least I am seeking advice on how to best do this, but anyways back to the initial point of whether my argument is valid or not.

peterhurford wrote:1.) It decreases people's goodwill toward you.
2.) It makes utilitarianism look bad.
3.) It makes you burn out because you have less social connections.

Additionally, I think utilitarians should take more of a heuristic approach for utilitarian reasons. Even thinking of gifts in purely instrumental terms is already harmful from a utilitarian perspective.

In response to the three points you made;

1) People's good will to me on a social level is nearly morally irrelevant as it is completely trivial compared to acts toward avoiding mass suffering

2) Yes it does, but the probability of people I know in my immediate social circle and most people know of even considering such values is so low that, that point could be seen as irrelevant. In positions were people could become utilitarian then I agree with your point that one should not take this step and indeed as utilitarian values hopefully grow, scenarios were someone does not know someone who could become a utilitarian in their immediate social circle will decline, hence I would argue that such a logic I hold is something relevant for most people in this particular time, though as time goes on will become less necessary. Hence it is not a value/tradition per se to hold in the long term or try spread, it should be kept under the social radar and only used where necessary for the short term

3) I think with long term progress and a slow transition one could easily find happiness in a less social environment and on top of that could get off the hedonic treadmill. Some may fail, so perhaps there could be a basic test devised to see if it is morally worthwhile.

Your points have altered my view, but I still think for certain people (probably most, though I cannot back that up, I can just say certain people for now) that are utilitarian, most of those people capable of such a lifestyle change by using their will & brain power and pushing towards it in the long term would be able to do it with a beneficial effect for the world in this particular time. This may seem really precise and in theory trivial in the scheme of thing's, but working out if would be right for someone is only a matter of moral progress toward a more utilitarian life anyways and stopping once it shows as having negative results after a certain point, so I don't feel it would be wasteful or potentially wasteful to try and push towards such a level of morality as there's very little to lose compared to what can be gained overall. It's hard to explain all of this in simple terms and in a neat enough format as so many points & consequences to consider, but for the mean time, what is your view on my statement here?

I don't give gifts to anyone and I haven't faced or burn out or ostracism for it yet. My position may be social situation may be quite different from yours, though.

CosmicPariah wrote:I don't give gifts to anyone and I haven't faced or burn out or ostracism for it yet. My position may be social situation may be quite different from yours, though.

In your situation, assuming if you celebrate christmas? If you do, how do people in your social circle; friends & family react or not react to you not giving them presents or at birthday's for example? But as you said perhaps your social situation is different. In mine it is the norm to give presents at christmas, for birthday's, etc.

deanmullen wrote:1) People's good will to me on a social level is nearly morally irrelevant as it is completely trivial compared to acts toward avoiding mass suffering

You're right that, directly, the satisfaction they get from getting a present is morally relevant, but still dominated by much better uses for your money.

However, indirect effects can make it quite important.

~

deanmullen wrote:the probability of people I know in my immediate social circle and most people know of even considering such values is so low that, that point could be seen as irrelevant. In positions were people could become utilitarian then I agree with your point...

The concern is not for recruitment, but for getting people to at least get along with you. It's one thing if someone is not utilitarian, but another thing for them to actually dislike utilitarians. We need non-utilitarians to at least be willing to get along with utilitarians.

Perhaps your individual lack of present giving will not have a large effect, but in the aggregate, all utilitarians refusing to give gifts would make utilitarianism work a lot worse.

~

deanmullen wrote:I think with long term progress and a slow transition one could easily find happiness in a less social environment and on top of that could get off the hedonic treadmill. Some may fail, so perhaps there could be a basic test devised to see if it is morally worthwhile.

It probably depends on you who are as a person, but I find it unlikely. A large body of research points to social connection as critical for personal happiness.