Peter Singer...what a coup! The discussion is fascinating. In anthropology, one of the key seminal texts you read in your first year or so is The Gift by Marcel Mauss(easily my favorite name for any social scientist). One of the things Mauss does is to break down the social aspects permeate and construct any act of giving, and in particular the moral exchange relationship that inevitably develops between giver, receiver, and the rest of society. This happens, importantly, regardless of the intention of the giver. In Hindu thought, for instance, it is simply impossible to give a 'pure gift' ie one without any karmic consequences, even if one's only thought is the gift itself and not the good juice you might get as a result. Yet despite its unattainability, the pure gift still remains an objective. (I think gods can give pure gifts, but I can't remember).

What Kurtzman may be after is a modern variant of the potlach, where we
essentially enter into a competitive - and very public - giving fiesta,
sometimes to our own ruin.

I have a good empirical example of that system working. It is the higher education system. The reason why Peter Singer gets paid more than his Australian and UK counterparts and can get his grad students to set and mark papers and exams while he can contemplate consequentialism is because Princeton, like most successful US institutions, are rolling in alumni endowments which pay for such a life style. British and Australian universities are desperately trying to engender a similar culture of ostentious giving amongst their wealthy alumns as government money to higher education dwindles to nothingness. We have a long way to go. So, US institutions are wealthier - but are they more equitable in the way the education is distributed? That I don't know.

For my part, I think I still side with modesty as a more worthy objective. Ultimately, you don't want any karma at all, even the good stuff. It ties you down.

Mr. M