Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
PHI2604
February8th,2015
TermPaper#1
Topic1:GlobalPoverty&Hunger
Worldhungerisanissuethataffectsmanyinthisworldtoday.TheUnitedNationsFoodand
AgricultureOrganizationestimatesthatnearly870millionpeopleofthe7.1billionpeopleintheworld,
oroneineight,weresufferingfromchronicundernourishmentin20102012.[3]Manyfactors
contributetothisproblem,however,wewillbelookingatthemoralobligation,weasasocietyhaveto
thosesufferingofpovertyandhungerratherthanthecauses.
Thetwosidesthatwillbediscussedonthistopicarefromtwoessays.OnewrittenbyPeter
Singer,anAustralianphilosopherandtheotherfromJanNarveson,aprofessorofPhilosophyatThe
UniversityofWaterlooinCanada.Whatmoralobligationdoweasasocietyhaveonhelpingoutthose
whoarelessfortunatethanus?Singerarguesthatwehaveanobligationtohelpthoseinneedandtakes
ittooneextremebyclaiminganymoneyspentonnonessentialitemsaredeprivingthoseinneed[1]
whereasNarvesontakesittotheotherendofthespectrumandsaysthatanyobligationwouldbetaking
awayonesliberty[2].Letsdivealittledeeperintotheseclaims.
Singerdiscussesacouplethoughtexperimentswhichbegthequestionareweharmingthe
worldbyspendingmoneyonunnecessaryitemsinsteadofdonatingthatmoneytocharity?The
answer,accordingtoSingerisyes,ouractionstonotspendourmoneyonotherstosavetheirlivesis
morallyinexcusable.[1]
Giannuzzi2
Hediscussesafewideaswhichanalogizecertainpeoplesactions,comparingthemessentially
tothekillingofothersOneofthemisthecaseofBob.Bobisintheunluckypositionofseeingachild
onthetracksandtheonlywaytosavethiskidistoflipaswitch,whichwouldplacehisonlyworldly
possession,aBugattiontotracks,savingthechild.Bobdecidesnottothrowtheswitchandthechild
dies.Singerstatesthatmanyofuswillthinkthatdecisioniswrong.Butcanthatbesowrongwhen
weinsocietyhavetheopportunitytosaveslivesallthetimeandrefuseto?Manyofuswillneverbein
Bobssituation,butmanyofusdohavethecapacitytopickupaphoneanddonatemoneyto
organizationslikeUNICEFandOxfamAmerica.Singersuggeststhatwearemorallyobligatedtodo
soifwecan.[1]
SingersaysthatanAmericanhouseholdwithanincomeof$50.000spendsaround$30,00
annuallyonnecessities.[1]Thatleavesuswith$20,000thatcouldbeusedtosavechildrenslives.He
comparesnotspendingourextraincometoBobnotflippingtheswitch.Singersuggeststhataperson
shoulddonate$200tosavealife.Thisnumberwascalculatedbyestimatingthecostachildneedsto
transitionfromage2toage6.[1]
TheviewsexpressedinSingersclaimsrepresentanoverallviewoftheethicsofutilitarianism,
whichemphasizesonincreasingthetotalbenefitofhumanityandthedecreasingofhumansuffering.[1]
Ultimately,themessageofthistheoryiscommunicatedthroughoutthisessaytheendgoalbeingto
helpthosearoundyouonceyourbasicnecessitiesrequiredforlivingaremet.
Ontheothersideofthespectrum,wehaveNarveson,whobeginsbyquestioningtheobligationswe
haveasasocietytohelpthosearounduswhoarestarving.Themainreasoninggivenisthatbeing
forcedtogivetakespeoplesliberty.[2]
Giannuzzi3
Narvesonmakesthedistinctionofseparatingtheideaofstarvationandmurder.Ifyouwereto
depriveonegroupofpeopleoffoodandwater,thatwouldbemurder,becauseyouarethedirectreason
whythatgroupofpeopledied.Alternatively,ifagroupofpeopleranoutoffoodontheirownand
theystarvedtodeath,thatwouldnotbemurder,althoughitwouldofcoursebeunfortunate.[2]
Narvesonisnotadvocatingallowingpeopletostarve,buthedoesbringuptherighttochoosewhether
ornotoneshouldfeedthehungry.Ifoneweretofeedthehungry,thatactwouldbeconsider
virtuous.[2]
Narvesonusesthewordsjusticeandcharitytomakethemoraldistinctionoffeedingthe
hungry.Justicebeingenforcedandcharitybeingamoralvirtue.Morespecifically,itismorally
permissibletoforcesomeonetoactjustly,butitisnotmorallypermissibletoforcesomeonetobe
charitable,asthatactwoulddiminishthevirtuousnatureofkindness.[2]
Also,Narvesonacknowledgesthathungerisntsuchaclearcutissue.Oftentimes,hungeris
causedbybadgovernmentsasopposedtonaturaldisaster.[2]Thisdistinctionisraisedtorecognize
thatweashumansarentsodirectlyconnectedtothosesufferingandalsobecauseabadgovernment
cancauseaproblemlikehungertolinger,evenaftertheinitialaidisgiven.[2]
TheviewsexpressedbyNarvesonarelibertarianincomparisontothoseofSingers.Narveson
respectstherightsthatwehaveasindividualstoacttohowweseefit,whilenotdiminishingthose
whodochoosetoactcharitable.Intheend,accordingtoSinger,apersonoughttoskipdinnerand
andgo
donateandNarvesonsays,Wecanfeedthestarving totheopera![1][2]
Giannuzzi4
NotesandWorksCited
1. TheEthicalLife.
Singer,Peter.TheSingerSolutiontoWorldPoverty. NewYork2015Print
2. Narveson,Jan.FeedingtheHungry. TheEthicalLife.
NewYork2015Print.
3. FoodandAgricultureOrganization.2012."TheStateofFoodInsecurityintheWorld
2012"http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e00.htm