Famine, Affluence, and Morality Notes

Poverty in the US:
- In 2022, the official poverty rate was 11.5%, with 37.9 million people living in poverty (according to official 2022 US census data). See census.gov.
- Poverty is calculated based on total income relative to the number of family members.
- If a family's total money income is less than the applicable threshold, the family and every individual in it are considered to be in poverty.
- Poverty thresholds vary from approximately $15,000$ annually for a single individual to between $22,000$ and $64,000$ for families of 3-9.
Poverty in Canada:
- In 2021, the official poverty rate was 7.4%, which equates to roughly 2-3 million people (according to official 2021 census data).
- Poverty threshold is determined by the Market Basket Measure (MBM).
- The MBM assesses the average cost of basic necessities, including food, clothing, transportation, and shelter.
Poverty in the World:
- 44% of the global population (around 3.5 billion people) live on less than $6.85$ per day. This figure represents the poverty line relevant for upper-middle-income countries.
- 8.5% of the global population (almost 700 million people) live on less than $2.15$ per day. This is the international poverty line (World Bank stats).
- The international poverty line is set at $2.15$ per person per day using 2017 prices.

The central ethical question: How can individuals and countries justify accumulating and/or spending large sums of money on non-essential items when so many people worldwide are suffering from poverty?

Peter Singer's core principle: "If we can prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do so."

Scenario: Imagine walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning. The ethical intuition is that one ought to wade in and pull the child out.
Justification: Getting clothes muddy is insignificant compared to the death of the child.

Proximity: The principle does not consider proximity or distance. Helping someone far away is as important as helping someone nearby.
Individual vs. Collective Action: The principle does not distinguish between situations where you are the only person who can help and situations where you are one of many who could help.

Too Drastic: The principle is perceived as too demanding because we do not typically condemn people for not giving.
Too Demanding: Adhering to the principle might require constant work and giving, without any expectation of personal improvement.
Marginal Utility: Following the principle could lead to reducing oneself to the level of "marginal utility," possessing only the barest necessities.

Should giving be considered solely an act of charity, or a moral duty? Why or why not?
Do governments have a greater, equal, or lesser moral obligation to help those in need than individuals?
Should some people have a greater moral obligation to give than others due to their financial means, privileged status, and/or position of power? Why or why not?