Global Poverty Part 1

1

• Global Poverty Part 1
• Peter Singer and the duty to help

2

• Facts

3

• 1/3 of all human deaths each year (18 million)
  are due to poverty-related causes and easily
  preventable diseases.
• Poverty deaths since 1990 324 million

4

• Death toll of wars, massacres and atrocities of
  the 20th c http//users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-190
  0.htm
• Total about 180 million

5

• 2) Extreme inequality
• Poorest 44 of mankind take up a meager 1.2 of
  annual global product
• High-income countries
• 15 of global population, 80 of aggregate global
  income in 2001

6

• Poverty as a moral problem
• Physical pain and sufferings
• Attendant social evils illiteracy, social
  exclusion, economic exploitation
• Stunting of human development (ref. Aristotle)
• Vulnerable to all sorts of unexpected happenings
  an untimely rain, a mild illness

7

• One notorious example female homicides in Ciudad
  Juarez in N Mexico, across the US border of
  Texas.
• 2007 North America City of the Future award of
  FDI Magazine
• Conglomeration of assembly plants
• Not only famous for its economic progress, but
  also something more sinister

8

• From 1993 to 2003, 370 women have been murdered,
  with 130 subjected to sexual assault before
  death.
• Many of the women were abducted, held captive
  for several days and subject to humiliation,
  torture and the most horrific sexual violence
  before dying Their bodies have been found
  several days or weeks later, hidden among rubble
  or abandoned in the deserted areas nearby.
  http//www.chicanafeliz.com/Juarez/AMR4102703.pdf

9

• What is our moral relationship with the distant
  poor?
• Only a matter of charity or beneficence?
• Warren Buffett, the world's second richest man,
  has pledged 30.7bn of his 44bn fortune to the
  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. According to
  the Chronicle of Philanthropy, it is the largest
  charitable donation ever made.
  (www.theregister.co.uk June 26th 2006)

10

• In the World Food Summit organized by UNFAO in
  1996, the 186 governments agreed that it is
  intolerable that more than 800 million people
  do not have enough to meet their basic needs.
• Yet, the US government insisted that eradication
  of starvation is a goal or aspiration to be
  realized progressively that does not give rise to
  any international obligations.

11

• Do we have a moral duty to help the poor?
• Peter Singer YES!!
• University Center for Human Values, Princeton
  University (1946 - )

12

• Lets start with our common intuitions with
  regard to rescue cases
• Peter walks past the lily pond on his way from
  CYM to the Philo Dept for the midterm test of
  PHIL1003. He notices that a boy is about to drown
  in the pond and there is no one nearby.
• Does Peter have a duty to help? YES, even though
  doing so might cost him a good grade.

13

• Underlying principle If we can prevent something
  morally bad from happening without sacrificing
  anything of comparable moral significance, we
  have a duty to do it.
• If we choose not to give anything away, arent
  we, as affluent citizens, as morally bad as one
  who just let the poor boy drown?

14

• Possible objections
• 1) Presence of other potential helpers
• Singers response Should I consider that I am
  less obliged to pull the drowning child out of
  the pond if on looking around I see other people,
  no further away than I am, who have also noticed
  the child but are doing nothing? One has only to
  asked this question to see the absurdity of the
  view that numbers less obligation.

15

• Case of Kitty Genovese
• For more than half an hour 38 respectable,
  law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer
  stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks
  in Kew Gardens. (New York Times Mar 27th 1964
  http//www2.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/scraig/gans
  berg.html)
• Bystander effect the greater is the number of
  bystanders, the less inclined is one to attempt
  to help

16

• 2) Priority be given fellow citizens
• Singers response why should distance be morally
  relevant?
• Moral arbitrariness of nationality

17

• Bomb dropped by Singer
• Every time we indulge ourselves in luxuries, we
  are in effect saying that
• Its terrible that you are suffering, and I
  feel sorry for you. While it would be nice for me
  to save you, you cant blame me for not doing
  anything, just like you cant blame Peter for not
  jumping it and hence letting the poor kid drown.

18

• Radical implications of Singers principle
• Extremely self-vigilant in our use of time
• Not only luxuries are impermissible, Singers
  principle requires us to keep giving away our
  money till the point of marginal utility
• This is because Singers principle is
  incremental.

19

• Richard Miller (Sage School of Philosophy,
  Cornell University) in Beneficience, Duty and
  Distance (Philosophy and Public Affairs 32 no. 4
  2004)
• We are entitled to the resources necessary for a
  meaningful pursuit of the goals that define who
  we are.
• How can we strike a balance between living a
  meaningful life and fulfilling our moral duties
  in the face of massive sufferings?

20

• Principle of sympathy
• We ought to have a sufficiently strong
  underlying concern towards others neediness so
  that any additional giving which manifests a
  greater underlying concern would impose a risk of
  making our lives significantly worse off.

21

• How does Millers principle avoids the
  incremental problem of Singers principle?
• Disposition is not sensitive to small amount of
  donations at the margin.
• If one is sufficiently concerned about others
  neediness, permissible not to give away what is
  sufficient to save yet another human.
• Seems plausible student A studies 18 hours a
  day. B studies 18 hours and 5 min.
• Is B more hard-working than A?

22

• Hence, while morality requires us to give a
  sufficient portion of our wealth away, it does
  allow us to (occasionally) spend some money on
  birthday presents/movie tickets. goals the
  pursuit of which are essential for our living a
  worthwhile life.

23

• Is our underlying concern towards others
  neediness indeed as coarse-grained as Miller
  suggests?
• Seems to be so only when we view people suffering
  from poverty as a homogeneous mass.
• Suppose A and B have the same income and have
  both given away 60 of their income.
• A I have already away so much, and giving away
  an extra 50 has nothing to do with whether I am
  a more caring person. So its morally okay for me
  not to give away the extra money.
• B I have already given away so much, and I
  dont want to any more. But since an extra 50
  can save a few more lives ok, I will do it
• Why doesnt this show that B has a greater
  concern for the needy than A?

24

• Do you agree with Peter Singer that the society
  can be better organised if we recognize that each
  of us are 'primarily responsible for running our
  own lives and only secondarily responsible for
  others'? Do you think that this is moral in a
  capitalist society? Can we still be moral if we
  take care of ourselves first and then consider
  the well being of others?