discomfort and woolen conscience

Peter Singer's 1972 essay, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", posits the following:

1. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of moral significance, then we must, morally, do it.
2. Hunger, disease, and other sources of suffering, disability, and death are very bad.
3. Luxuries we spend money on are not of moral significance.
4. Donating money to relief organizations can prevent, reduce, and eliminate sources of hunger, disease and disability, and suffering.

Therefore, we are morally obligated to donate the money we spend on luxuries to relief organizations.

When reading about this position, and the pure lack of possible critical corollaries to the position as stated by Singer, the most intriguing recurrent theme I noticed was irascible, irate, and purely hateful anger in response to the lack of a proper stance to continue operating "as is", i.e. continuing to spend on luxuries over donating to morally just causes. The video by Jeffrey Kaplan summarizing and teaching the essay, purely pointing out the positions as stated, had to turn off comments due to the overwhelming hateful and threatening responses to the moral corollary. I find this extremely interesting, and I believe the reasons for this behavior have roots in the following:

1. grand ethics (ethics that extend beyond primary experience) are never a root consideration for individual decision making, and this is rooted in biology (via the selfish gene) prior to the formation of conscience in humanity.
2. consciousness is a coordinated internal authoritarian seeking the mode to tell a story of the self to maintain its position in the disparate biological function
3. morality is post-hoc fabrication of individual conscience, a method of justifying its authoritarian actions to the disjointed simulacra of "I" through mirroring
4. In the order of human needs, comfort of the authoritarian "I" is placed higher than the needs of others

I think Singer's essay left the "I" (in some forms similar to Frued's superego) in the untenable position of a mutiny with no story to justify its comfortable position, so the anger response is a literal fight or flight bodily tension needed to continue operation as normal. Singer's essay functions less as a moral compass and more as a rhetorical spike trap piercing holes into the ego that conducts an immune response to maintain equilibrium.

0. Prior to taking others into consideration, the needs of the self must be addressed.

1. The needs of the self consist of food, water, shelter, and health.

2. As long as these needs are met, the authoritarian "I" needs ways to justify its position through storytelling.

3. Food, water, shelter, and health have been transubstantiated into forms of luxury; the needs of everyone can already be met.

4. The fact that everyone's needs are not met is turned into a justification story by the "I" about the successful self and the unsuccessful other.

This story is logically destroyed by Singer's essay. The authoritarian "I" has an inherent Heideggerean will to will in perpetuity, and once that position is in question, the self enters a state of emergency.

Comfort is the homeostasis of this "I". If you are comfortable, you are accepting this hierarchy and by extension all hierarchy and its implications.

discomfort is the prime virtue of man.