This, of course, is what he should do, given his ideas and arguments, so kudos to him. If he were not a proponent of "effective [i.e., measurable in the short-term] altruism," he might choose different beneficiaries for the money, but that's a separate debate.
As I've written elsewhere, "Peter Singer is quite clearly the preeminent bourgeois moral philosopher of our time, with his relentless focus on individual action and its individual impact, holding constant (indeed ignoring) the systemic status quo." In that regard, it is fitting that the Berggruen Prize--which is now meaningless qua philosophy prize--is self-named by a quintessential owner of capital, who turned a quarter-million dollar trust fund into a fortune through investing in real estate, stocks and private equity.
So, again, kudos to Professor Singer for living up to his principles, but one might wonder: why should we have an economic system in which Berggruen is allowed to accumulate so much wealth that he can then dispense it like this, based on his whims, and without regard for human needs or well-being? I suspect the philosopher who answers that question in the negative will not be a winner of the Berggruen Prize.
Recent Comments