Global Poverty and Famine: A Philosophical Examination

Global Poverty and Famine: Ethical Perspectives

Introduction

• The discussion revolves around global poverty and famine as an applied ethical issue.
• It examines different normative ethical approaches, including utilitarianism, libertarianism, and ethics of care and empathy.

Philosophers and Their Approaches

• Peter Singer: Applies a utilitarian approach.
  • Known for arguments against eating meat and in favor of effective altruism.
  • Holds degrees from Oxford University.
  • Teaches at Princeton University and the University of Melbourne.
• Jan Narvisan: Takes a libertarian approach.
  • Received a PhD in philosophy from Harvard.
  • Formerly taught at the University of Waterloo.
  • Research focused on political philosophy, particularly contractarianism and libertarianism.
• Lisa Cassidy: Draws from The Ethics of Care and Empathy.
  • Received a PhD in philosophy from the University of Connecticut and teaches at Ramapo College of New Jersey.
  • Research focuses on feminist ethics and the scholarship of teaching and learning.

Global Poverty Statistics

• International Poverty Line: Set at 1.90 per day by the United Nations.
  • Equivalent to approximately 730 per year.
• Global Poverty Statistics: Approximately 783 million people live below this line.
  • In 2016, about 10% of the world's workers earned less than $$1.90 per day.
  • More women than men live in extreme poverty.
  • Most people below the poverty line reside in Southern Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa.

Peter Singer's Utilitarian Argument

• Shallow Pond Analogy: Imagine passing a shallow pond where a child is drowning.
  • Saving the child would ruin your pants, requiring a replacement purchase.
  • If the cost of replacing the pants is less important than saving the child's life, there is a moral obligation to save the child.
• Global Application: If donating money to an international aid organization would save a child's life, there is a moral obligation to do so.
• Extent of Obligation: Singer argues we have a moral obligation to donate whatever we aren't spending on our necessities to save as many people as possible.
• Addressing Objections to Singer's Argument
  • The aid might not reach the people who need it most.
    • Many international aid organizations are effective in distributing aid.
    • Information is available to help individuals make informed decisions about charitable giving.
    • For example. 89% of UNICEF donations go directly to children in need.
    • Transparency exists.
  • Many who can afford to give do not.
    • The fact that others aren't donating does not absolve one's own moral obligation.
    • Modifying the pond analogy to include multiple bystanders (Carol, Dave, Emma, Fatima, Ziggy) highlights the shared responsibility.
    • If none of them save the child, it does not mean any of them are blameless.

Jan Narvisan's Libertarian Response

• Central Question: Whether allowing a person to die of starvation through inaction is morally equivalent to actively starving someone to death.
• Justice vs. Charity: Justice includes actions we can be forced to do, while charity is a matter of desiring to benefit others.
• Two Main Questions:
  • Is there a basic duty of justice to feed the starving?
  • If not, is there a basic requirement of charity?
• Arguments Against Duty to Feed the Starving:
  • No distinction between killing and letting die.
  • People have a right to be fed.
• Killing vs. Letting Die:
  • Narvisan argues that allowing someone to die isn't the same as killing them.
  • Reference to James Rachels' essay on killing and letting die.
  • Rachels' Thought Experiment: Two siblings independently decide to poison their parent for inheritance.
    • Sibling A poisons the parent.
    • Sibling B witnesses this and does not intervene.
    • Rachel suggests there's no moral difference because Sibling B could have prevented the death and didn't.
  • Narvisan argues that the case is not similar for starvation.
    • A person would have starved whether or not we existed.
    • A lack of donation isn't what's keeping the person from dying.
• Ethics of the Hair Shirt:
  • If someone else could receive more benefit or pleasure from a dollar than you could by spending it on yourself, then you have a duty to spend that dollar to benefit the other person.
  • A direct response to Singer's argument.
  • Limits freedom of those who are better off and so should not be forced.
• Conclusion: There is no duty to care about people about whom we don't ordinarily care or think about, and so it might be the moral thing to do, but it isn't something that morality requires of you.

Lisa Cassidy's Ethics of Care and Empathy

• Position: Attempts to find a middle ground between Singer and Narvisan.
• Critique of Singer: Some people find Singer's argument unpersuasive because of their views on personal responsibility.
• Critique of Narvisan: Some think Narvisan's argument doesn't go far enough, as it could justify wastefulness.
• Personal Responsibility
  • Cassidy references Samuel Scheffler's views.
  • Two features of common sense views about responsibility:
    • Negative duties take priority over positive duties.
      • Negative duties: Duties not to hurt other people.
      • Positive duties: Duties to do things to help other people.
      • Singer asks us to put positive duties on the same level as negative duties.
    • It is morally acceptable to prefer friends and loved ones over strangers.
  • People aren't always persuaded by the argument because of these points
  • Example: If I hurt a child myself as opposed to allowing that child to come to harm by my not donating money, the former is worse because of negative duties.
  • Buying a sweater as opposed to donating ($50); it would disappoint them if I came empty handed.
• Alternatives to Singer's Account of Responsibility:
  • Credit-taking sense of responsibility.
    • Being a past cause of some current state of affairs.
    • How much do individual purchasing habits contribute to global poverty?
    • Individuals may have some credit-taking responsibility for the current situation.
  • Management sense of responsibility.
    • Thinking about different courses of action and choosing what's appropriate.
    • How consumer practices contribute to global poverty.
    • In what way do we consume things that does have an negative effect?
  • Caretaking sense of responsibility.
    • Being committed to supporting something or someone.
    • Caring for the people who make the things we purchase.
    • Just as we support friends and family, we should support the strangers around the globe who are manufacturing what we purchase.
    • Caring about such people may mean:
      • Donating funds to poverty relief.
      • Becoming politically involved.
      • Placing the trivial needs of our friends and loved ones behind the basic needs of others.