Global nutrition statistics: According to cautious estimates, 400 million people lack the necessary calories, protein, vitamins, and minerals required to maintain their bodies and minds in a healthy state.
Health consequences of hunger:
Millions exist in a state of constant hunger.
Malnutrition leads to deficiency diseases and increased susceptibility to infections that a standard diet would otherwise resist.
Impact on child mortality:
Children are the most vulnerable demographic.
A study identifies that 14 million children under the age of 5 die annually from the combined effects of malnutrition and infection.
In specific high-risk districts, half of all children born are expected to die before reaching their fifth birthday.
Additional hardships: Poverty extends beyond a lack of food to include inadequate shelter, clothing, sanitation, health services, and education.
THE DEFINITION OF ABSOLUTE VS. RELATIVE POVERTY
Relative Poverty: This is the form of poverty familiar in industrialized nations (e.g., Australia, Britain). It is defined as being poor relative to the wealth enjoyed by one's neighbors. For example, a person in relative poverty in Australia might be comfortably off compared to a pensioner in Britain.
Absolute Poverty: Coined by Robert McNamara, former president of the World Bank, this refers to poverty by any standard.
McNamara's Definition: "A condition of life so characterised by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency."
Marginal Existence: It is life at the very margin of existence, involving severe deprivation that is difficult for those in privileged circumstances to conceive.
Statistical Comparison (Poorest Nations vs. Developed Countries):
Infant mortality rate: 8 times higher in the poorest nations.
Life expectancy: One-third lower (33.3% lower).
Adult literacy rate: 60% less than developed nations.
Nutritional levels: One out of every two people in the population falls below acceptable standards.
Brain development: Millions of infants lack sufficient protein for optimum brain development.
Global Scale: The Worldwatch Institute estimates that 1.2 billion people, or approximately 23% of the world’s population, live in absolute poverty.
Basis of Estimate: Absolute poverty is defined by having insufficient income (cash or kind) to meet basic biological needs for food, clothing, and shelter.
FACTS CONCERNING GLOBAL WEALTH AND RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION
The Persistence of Poverty: Human misery from malnutrition is a constant state on the planet and rarely makes headlines, unlike temporary natural disasters (droughts, cyclones, earthquakes, and floods) which are more newsworthy but add to a baseline of suffering that exists regardless of calamities.
Production vs. Distribution: The global problem is not a lack of production capacity but a failure of distribution. The world produces enough food for everyone.
Discrepancy in Grain Consumption:
Poor nations: Individuals consume an average of 180,kilos of grain per year.
North Americans: Individuals consume an average of 900,kilos of grain per year.
Inefficiency of Meat Production: The massive difference is due to rich nations feeding grain to animals to produce meat, milk, and eggs. This process is highly inefficient. If grain and soybeans were distributed directly to those in need instead of animals, world hunger could be ended.
Potential for Growth: Poor nations could increase their own production significantly by using improved agricultural techniques, but they currently lack the capital for seeds, fertilizers, and machinery (e.g., for drilling wells).
ABSOLUTE AFFLUENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AID LEVELS
Definition of Absolute Affluence: Having a significant amount of income above the level necessary to provide for the basic human needs of oneself and one's dependents.
Characteristics of the Absolutely Affluent:
They choose food for the "pleasures of the palate" rather than to stop hunger.
They buy clothes for aesthetics rather than warmth.
They move houses for neighborhoods or playrooms rather than to escape the rain.
They possess discretionary income for luxuries like stereo systems, video cameras, and overseas holidays.
Demographics of Affluence: Most citizens of Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and oil-rich Middle Eastern states qualify as absolutely affluent.
International Aid Targets: The United Nations set a modest target for official development assistance at 0.7% of Gross National Product (GNP).
Current Aid Contributions:
Nations meeting the target: Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, and some oil-exporting Arab states.
Britain: Gives 0.31% of its GNP (approx. 2 per person per month), compared to 5.5% spent on alcohol and 3% on tobacco.
Germany: Gives 0.41% of GNP.
Japan: Gives 0.32% of GNP.
United States: Gives 0.15% of GNP.
THE MORAL ARGUMENT: KILLING VS. ALLOWING TO DIE
The Moral Equivalent of Murder: Peter Singer suggests that by not giving, the affluent are allowing people in poor countries to die. This applies to both governments and individuals.
The Drowning Child Analogy: If one passes a shallow ornamental pond and sees a child drowning, one ought to wade in and save them, even if it means muddying clothes or being late for a lecture. The avoidable death of a child is vastly more significant than these minor inconveniences.
Relevant Differences between Killing and Not Aiding:
Lack of an identifiable victim: While common in aid contexts, Singer argues this is not morally significant.
Notions of responsibility: The idea that we are only responsible for what we do, not what we fail to prevent, is based on a questionable theory of rights.
Certainty and motivation: These are ethically significant. Not aiding is not exactly the same as murder (malice), but it is comparable to reckless driving resulting in death.
Difficulty of the task: It is harder to save everyone than to merely avoid killing, but this does not excuse making no effort to save anyone.
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE OBLIGATION TO ASSIST
The Fundamental Principle: "If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it."
Formal Argument Structure:
First premise: If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.
Second premise: Absolute poverty is bad.
Third premise: There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.
Conclusion: We ought to prevent some absolute poverty.
Challenging the "Charity" Concept: Helping those in danger is not a "charitable" act that is praiseworthy to do but okay to omit; it is a moral obligation that everyone ought to do.
The "Drops in the Ocean" Objection: The goal isn't necessarily to end all poverty alone, but to prevent some poverty. If one can provide one family the means to rise out of absolute poverty without sacrificing something of comparable significance, the obligation is vindicated.
OBJECTIONS: COMMUNITY, KINSHIP, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
Taking Care of Our Own: The argument that we should help local poor before those overseas.
Singer's Response: While we feel closer to our own, there is no sound moral justification for concluding that distance or citizenship changes our obligation. People's need for food is independent of race or nationality (Principle of Equal Consideration).
Role of the Family: It is efficient for families to look after their members, but this preference is outweighed by the massive discrepancy in wealth where affluent children have bikes and stereos while others starve.
Property Rights (Nozick vs. Aquinas):
Individualistic Theory (Robert Nozick): Suggests that if wealth is acquired justly, the state cannot compel redistribution. However, even Nozick might agree that giving is something one "ought" to do voluntarily.
Christian Doctrine (Thomas Aquinas): Holds that superabundance is owed by natural right to the poor for their sustenance.
Singer’s View: Wealth distribution is currently based on chance (e.g., oil under sand in Bahrein vs. drought in Chad), which is not an acceptable ethical basis for allowing others to starve.
THE ETHICS OF TRIAGE AND OVERPOPULATION
The Triage Objection: A policy from wartime medicine where victims are divided into three groups: (1) Will survive anyway, (2) Might survive with help, (3) Won't survive regardless. Triage advocates suggest we should only help the second category.
Lifeboat Ethics (Garrett Hardin): The rich are in a lifeboat; if they take in the drowning poor, the boat sinks and everyone drowns. Thus, the rich should leave the poor to starve.
Singer’s Rebuttal (The Demographic Transition): Evidence suggests population growth slows as standards of living rise.
Process: Improvements in medicine/sanitation first reduce the death rate (causing a population spike). Eventually, parents realize they don't need many children for old-age support, and birth rates drop.
Success Stories (1965 to 1991): Third-world contraceptive use rose from 8% to over 50%. Successes seen in Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Bangladesh.
Effective Aid: Aid should focus on agricultural assistance, education, and contraceptive services to hasten this transition.
Population Projections (Year 2000 Estimates as of 1993):
Bangladesh: Expected to rise from 115 million to 150 million.
Ethiopia: Expected to rise from 49 million to 66 million.
India: Expected to rise from 853 million to 1041 million.
Zaire: Expected to rise from 35 million to 49 million.
Final Moral Conclusion: It is ethically unacceptable to allow millions to die when there is a reasonable probability that population can be controlled through economic security and education.