Please donate!
You know, as a philosopher, you're always confronted with the accusation that you're just there to "talk." That may certainly be true sometimes. Many people who philosophize tend to ramble, talk nonsense, and want to show off their erudition. But of course, it's not quite that one-sided. Everyone has to take a good look at themselves, too. When, for example, was the last time you donated money?
By Pascal Deniz Degen
By Pascal Deniz Degen
According to the German Donation Council, "16.7 million people donated money in 2024." In my opinion, that's shockingly few, don't you think?
This is where philosophy comes in, or more precisely, the philosopher Peter Singer. In his 1972 (!) article "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Singer writes about the duty to donate. Not at all theoretical. Quite practical. It's hard to believe, but we philosophers can do that. Nevertheless, as you just read, only 16.7 million people fulfill this duty.
At this point, it should be said that Singer is, of course, not the only philosopher, but his argument is quite brilliant and gets right to the heart of the matter. Let me try to paraphrase his example:
Imagine you've bought some new clothes. Maybe shoes, pants, a sweater--it doesn't matter. Let's say that particular item of clothing wasn't exactly cheap; you treated yourself to something nice, and you deserve it sometimes, right? Now you're out for a walk, wearing your new clothes. It's a lovely day, and you're wearing your new outfit. But as you pass a pond, you see something truly awful. A small child is drowning, crying for help and barely able to stay afloat. You can already see its head slowly disappearing under the water. Now for the crucial question: What do you do?
Of course, you rescue the child immediately. You don't even think about what will happen to your new shoes, whether they might get dirty, and ideally, you don't even take the time to take them off. You can see that the child is on the brink of death.
So, this example is meant to illustrate the point: A child is dying right before your eyes. What do you do without hesitation? You help! Even if it results in a "financial loss" for you.
Now, those of you I'm criticizing here will naturally want to justify your actions and offer reasons why you don't donate. I'd like to preempt them and address some of the most prominent objections:
1. The real world isn't that simple!
Sure, this example is very simplified. You see something bad happening, take action, and then see that your actions have made a difference. In real life, you don't know if the money actually reaches those in need or achieves the desired effect. So you want to be sure that your money is being used responsibly and that you're not being ripped off, right?
Well, have you ever actually asked yourself who in this world isn't ripping you off? I mean, where do we live? Do you ask yourself with every euro you spend whether it's being used "wisely" or is "justified"? How much did you pay for your last smartphone or car? Do you know the production costs of that purchase? Do these two things add up? Are the sums of money in relation to each other, or is it simply not that important whether you're being ripped off?
Just think about it: we live in a world where we're confronted with advertising every day, every hour, practically every second. Advertising is designed to get you to buy certain things. Why isn't that a problem for you? You spend money on these things, too.
2. Structural problems can't be solved individually!
I admit, this is a good and important point: How am I, as an individual, supposed to solve the world's problems? Shouldn't states, institutions, and the free market also be held accountable? You're right, that's true! But why can't we do both at the same time?
Can't we, as individuals, donate and simultaneously demand more support from the state and others? Why should only one of the two be possible?
Furthermore: What exactly is a state, an institution, or a company made of? Individual people, or not?
3. The pond is overcrowded!
In my opinion, this really seems to be the weakest argument. But anyway, it still deserves mentioning. I think it goes without saying: The pond is full, and I'm alone there; I can't save all the children.
So what? Does that mean I'm not allowed to save a single child from drowning now because others will drown in my place? If I can't save everyone, am I saving no one?
I beg your pardon.
Look, we could go on with more objections. But that simply doesn't make sense. There are only three serious reasons not to donate.
First: You simply don't have enough money. Please be honest with yourself. In Germany, we don't just have 16.7 million people who don't live in poverty.
Second: You simply haven't actively thought about it, and that's just...You somehow hadn't really considered it. No big deal, but after reading this text, you'll know what to do.
And thirdly: You simply don't care. That's just how it is; humans aren't meant to always act perfectly. We can't do everything perfectly. But be honest with yourself here too, and don't make up excuses to make yourself feel better afterward!
I don't want to end on such a negative note. A philosopher who criticizes must also offer a positive suggestion. Hence the mention that Peter Singer's work led to the founding of the organization "The Life You Can Save." Its European equivalent is the organization "Effective Donations." Why not take a look at their website and learn more?
Alternatively, why not visit your old school, your children's sports club, or another charitable organization in your area and see if you can help with money or donations? If you sponsor a ping-pong table for children at a school, you can also directly check "whether the donation arrives."
Otherwise, two poor podcasters are always happy to receive a donation or financial recognition for their work.
We don't always have to solve the world's biggest problems.
A good deed never hurts anyone!
November 24, 2025
Pascal Deniz Degen is 25 years old and a true Berliner. In his hometown, he successfully completed his bachelor's degree in history and philosophy. His great passion for philosophy led him to Vienna, where he is currently pursuing his master's degree. His self-proclaimed goal is to liberate philosophy from the clutches of academia and make it accessible to society once again.
LINK TO THE NEW BOOK
This is where philosophy comes in, or more precisely, the philosopher Peter Singer. In his 1972 (!) article "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Singer writes about the duty to donate. Not at all theoretical. Quite practical. It's hard to believe, but we philosophers can do that. Nevertheless, as you just read, only 16.7 million people fulfill this duty.
At this point, it should be said that Singer is, of course, not the only philosopher, but his argument is quite brilliant and gets right to the heart of the matter. Let me try to paraphrase his example:
Imagine you've bought some new clothes. Maybe shoes, pants, a sweater--it doesn't matter. Let's say that particular item of clothing wasn't exactly cheap; you treated yourself to something nice, and you deserve it sometimes, right? Now you're out for a walk, wearing your new clothes. It's a lovely day, and you're wearing your new outfit. But as you pass a pond, you see something truly awful. A small child is drowning, crying for help and barely able to stay afloat. You can already see its head slowly disappearing under the water. Now for the crucial question: What do you do?
Of course, you rescue the child immediately. You don't even think about what will happen to your new shoes, whether they might get dirty, and ideally, you don't even take the time to take them off. You can see that the child is on the brink of death.
So, this example is meant to illustrate the point: A child is dying right before your eyes. What do you do without hesitation? You help! Even if it results in a "financial loss" for you.
Now, those of you I'm criticizing here will naturally want to justify your actions and offer reasons why you don't donate. I'd like to preempt them and address some of the most prominent objections:
1. The real world isn't that simple!
Sure, this example is very simplified. You see something bad happening, take action, and then see that your actions have made a difference. In real life, you don't know if the money actually reaches those in need or achieves the desired effect. So you want to be sure that your money is being used responsibly and that you're not being ripped off, right?
Well, have you ever actually asked yourself who in this world isn't ripping you off? I mean, where do we live? Do you ask yourself with every euro you spend whether it's being used "wisely" or is "justified"? How much did you pay for your last smartphone or car? Do you know the production costs of that purchase? Do these two things add up? Are the sums of money in relation to each other, or is it simply not that important whether you're being ripped off?
Just think about it: we live in a world where we're confronted with advertising every day, every hour, practically every second. Advertising is designed to get you to buy certain things. Why isn't that a problem for you? You spend money on these things, too.
2. Structural problems can't be solved individually!
I admit, this is a good and important point: How am I, as an individual, supposed to solve the world's problems? Shouldn't states, institutions, and the free market also be held accountable? You're right, that's true! But why can't we do both at the same time?
Can't we, as individuals, donate and simultaneously demand more support from the state and others? Why should only one of the two be possible?
Furthermore: What exactly is a state, an institution, or a company made of? Individual people, or not?
3. The pond is overcrowded!
In my opinion, this really seems to be the weakest argument. But anyway, it still deserves mentioning. I think it goes without saying: The pond is full, and I'm alone there; I can't save all the children.
So what? Does that mean I'm not allowed to save a single child from drowning now because others will drown in my place? If I can't save everyone, am I saving no one?
I beg your pardon.
Look, we could go on with more objections. But that simply doesn't make sense. There are only three serious reasons not to donate.
First: You simply don't have enough money. Please be honest with yourself. In Germany, we don't just have 16.7 million people who don't live in poverty.
Second: You simply haven't actively thought about it, and that's just...You somehow hadn't really considered it. No big deal, but after reading this text, you'll know what to do.
And thirdly: You simply don't care. That's just how it is; humans aren't meant to always act perfectly. We can't do everything perfectly. But be honest with yourself here too, and don't make up excuses to make yourself feel better afterward!
I don't want to end on such a negative note. A philosopher who criticizes must also offer a positive suggestion. Hence the mention that Peter Singer's work led to the founding of the organization "The Life You Can Save." Its European equivalent is the organization "Effective Donations." Why not take a look at their website and learn more?
Alternatively, why not visit your old school, your children's sports club, or another charitable organization in your area and see if you can help with money or donations? If you sponsor a ping-pong table for children at a school, you can also directly check "whether the donation arrives."
Otherwise, two poor podcasters are always happy to receive a donation or financial recognition for their work.
We don't always have to solve the world's biggest problems.
A good deed never hurts anyone!
November 24, 2025
Pascal Deniz Degen is 25 years old and a true Berliner. In his hometown, he successfully completed his bachelor's degree in history and philosophy. His great passion for philosophy led him to Vienna, where he is currently pursuing his master's degree. His self-proclaimed goal is to liberate philosophy from the clutches of academia and make it accessible to society once again.
LINK TO THE NEW BOOK
Write a comment