Poverty and World Hunger:
Singer, and Arthur
Singer, "Famine, Affluence and Morality"


Singer uses a consequentialist standpoint to
evaluate our moral responsibilities in the face
of widespread poverty, starvation and need.
He offers two versions of a principle aimed to
specify this responsibility:
 Strong Principle: "If it is in our power to prevent something
bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of
comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it"
(454).
○ What does Singer mean by "without thereby sacrificing anything
of comparable moral importance"? Answer "...without causing
anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something
that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good,
comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent.”
 Weak Principle: "If it is in our power to prevent something
very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything morally
significant, we ought, morally, to do it" (Ibid.).
The Argument
1.
2.
3.
4.
Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and
medical care are bad.
The Strong Principle. (You could use the weak one as
well.)
It is within our power to prevent suffering and death
from lack of food, shelter and medical care, without
thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral
importance.
So, we ought, morally, work to prevent such suffering
and death.
Implication
As Singer makes clear, there is a surprising and
significant implication of this argument.
 Suppose my family income is $200,000 per year and,
moved by the plight of the world's poor, I give ten
dollars to a global disaster relief agency such as Oxfam
or Doctors without Borders. Then I think about going to
the movies. But wait, I could instead donate another
ten dollars to Oxfam. And another, and another.
 Singer's argument seems to conclude that I should
continue giving this way until further giving would lead
to a comparable moral sacrifice, maybe all the way to
the global poverty level.

Can This be Right?

This seems implausible, but Singer uses an
analogical application of the Strong Principle to
buttress his case.
 Suppose I am walking by a pond in the woods. I'm alone. I see a small
child drowning in shallow water. I could save the child easily and without
risk to myself, suffering only the slight inconvenience of getting my pants
muddy. Singer says one is morally obligated to pull the drowning child
from the shallow pond to prevent the drowning.

Singer insists that there is no morally significant
difference between the drowning child case and
the decision I face when I could spend money on
myself or instead donate resources to famine
relief.
 So, if you think you should save the child, you should get
out your checkbook.
Duty?
Another implication of this argument is that the
traditional, conventional way of drawing the line
between moral duty and charity cannot be maintained.
 According to common moral opinion, one is morally
bound not to harm others, but helping others is morally
optional.
 If you do help others, you are going above and beyond
the call of duty, and are to be commended for being
charitable—doing good you were not duty-bound to do.
 On Singer's Strong Principle, this way of characterizing
the relationship between duty and charity is turned
upside down. Singer would agree with Kant that we do
have a duty to be charitable, but he would go further
and insist that the duty is a defined one.

Objections and Replies Pt. 1

Objection 1. The child in the example is close by and the
global poor one might aid are far away . Also, the child will
drown right now if you do not help, but giving to relief
agencies will only prevent deaths in the future.
 Singer's reply: Mere distance in time and distance in space are
in and of themselves irrelevant to the determination of what one
ought to do.

Objection 2. In the drowning child example, you are the only
one who could help. In the case of disaster relief, you are
one of many people who could help.
 Singer's reply: It does not matter morally how many people could
help the situation. Suppose 100 people are on the beach, and
see a child drowning in shallow water. Any of the 100 could help.
If no one helps, all do wrong. That others could have helped
does not lessen your responsibility.
Objections and Replies Pt. 2

Objection 3. The argument's conclusion is drastically at
odds with our current moral beliefs so cannot be right.
 Singer's reply: Why assume our current moral beliefs are all
correct? Singer has asserted a principle, and tried to show what
conduct is required by the principle. If the principle is acceptable,
and the reasoning from the principle is sound, the conclusion,
even if at odds with current opinions, stands.

Objection 4. The morality that Singer is proposing is far
beyond the capacities of the ordinary person, so should
not be accepted and established in society.
 Singer's reply: "The issue here is: Where should we draw the
line between conduct that is required and conduct that is good
although not required, so as to get the best possible result?"
This looks to be a hard empirical issue, and it is far from obvious
that the answer is that moral requirements should be minimal.
Arthur, "Hunger and Obligation"



Arthur criticizes Singer's conclusions in "Famine,
Affluence and Morality."
His criticism rests on his analysis of Singer's
Strong Principle.
On his reading, the Strong Principle is justified by
Singer explicitly with reference to the drowning
child analogy, but implicitly by reference to what
Arthur identifies as a principle of Moral Equality:
the poor are just as important as we are, so it
would be unjust if I prefer my trivial interests to
preservation of their lives.
Moral Equality?
At first glance, this principle seems noncontroversial (perhaps this is why Singer
never really highlights it), but Arthur
argues that there is more to the question
than meets the eye.
 What the equality principle overlooks is
another important moral concept:
entitlement.

Moral Entitlement

According to Arthur, and in agreement with
much philosophical and legal precedent,
there are two kinds of entitlements: rights
and desert.
 Entitlements of Rights: we are not obligated to heroism
(e.g., to give up, our kidneys or eyes or grant sexual
favors to save someone else's life or sanity (459)).
Strangers have only negative rights (rights of noninterference), unless we have volunteered for it.
 Entitlements of Desert: we have a right to what we
deserve based on the past. Story of the industrious and
lazy farmers (460).
Implications




Our moral system already gives weight to both
future and past, consequences and entitlements.
Of course we ought to help the drowning child if
nothing of greater importance is at stake; but our
moral code must take into account both
consequences and entitlements.
According to Arthur, Singer just completely ignores
backward-looking considerations. We do have
obligations to help others, but they don't
overwhelm our moral entitlements (e.g., to go to
the movies).
This is a kind of moderate position.