Philosophy 220
World Hunger and Poverty:
Sen and O’Neill
Sen, “Property and Hunger”
 Sen offers us a rights-based approach to the
issues of poverty and hunger.
 The right that he directs our attention to is the right to
property.
 To appreciate the significance of this right, he
insists that we locate it in a general theory of
rights which accounts for their moral
significance and implications.
The Moral Importance of Rights
 On Sen’s account, the moral significance
and import of a right can be accounted for
in three ways.
1.The instrumental view: rights don't matter on
their own; only their consequences matter.
2.The constraint view: rights matter on their
own; consequences do not matter.
3.The goal view: rights matter on their own;
their consequences matter as well.
Two Conclusions
 Elsewhere, Sen has argued in favor of the goal
view of rights, basing his argument on the intrinsic
significance of basic human rights.
 Even without this argument, Sen insists that we
should draw two conclusions from this account of
the moral significance of rights.
 We must distinguish between the intrinsic value of a right
and the overall value of a right.
 No moral assessment of a right can be independent of its
likely consequences.
What About Property?
 Though a right to property is often assumed to
be intrinsically good, Sen’s review of
arguments justifying the right to property
reveals that it is typically defended by the
instrumental view (i.e., by it’s consequences).
 While there may be many good consequences
of property, there are clearly negative
consequences as well, most importantly for our
purposes, poverty and hunger.
Property, Poverty and Hunger
 When we consider how property contributes to
poverty and hunger, two features of property
rights come to the fore.
 Endowments: a person’s starting point; the
property/wealth bequeathed to them.
 Exchange entitlements: the benefits through
exchange procurable from the endowment.
 From this point of view hunger and poverty are
a result of a lack of endowments/entitlements
to wealth/food.
 Sen uses a number of examples to show that
availability of food can be, but not need be a factor.
A Social Response
 Given the unavoidable inequalities of endowment and
resulting exchange entitlements, the only way to
address poverty and hunger are through institutional
(structural) reform.
 Sen argues that we should increase the entitlements of
deprived groups by:
1. increasing food production;
2. adjusting how food is distributed;
3. reducing entitlements of more prosperous groups.
Right not to be hungry
 Obviously, such a right only makes sense if the right to
property is not absolute.
 There’s no reason to assume that it is (other rights are not; we
recognize a number of legitimate restrictions-zoning laws,
eminent domain).
 More importantly, an account of basic human needs
provides strong support for the existence of a right to
adequate resources to provide for these needs.
 Such an argument can be justified by any of the views of
rights we’ve considered.
 Sen uses the example of India to demonstrate that
institutional structures assuming such a right are
consistent with our other social goals.
O’Neill, “A Kantian Approach”
 O’Neill’s starting point is Kant’s Humanity
formulation of the categorical imperative.
 As we discussed it, this formulation requires
two things:
 do not treat others as mere means;
 do treat others as ends in themselves.
 As O’Neill insists, these requirements
have clear implications for questions of
hunger and poverty.
Justice and Beneficence
 On O’Neill’s account, the humanity formulation
imposes obligations to justice and beneficence.
 With regard to justice, the humanity formulation
requires us to acknowledge that we cannot deceive
or coerce people (remember “voluntary informed
consent”).
 With regard to beneficence, the key is the
requirement to respect people as rational and
autonomous beings. As Kant specifies it in his
analysis of our duty to beneficence, this means we
have an obligation to support the capacity of others
to be ends in themselves.
What does Justice require?
 Clearly, people suffering from hunger and
poverty are vulnerable in a number of ways to
those more fortunate.
 We benefit from the lack of development in other
countries with cheap products that make our lives
easier and more comfortable.
 Kant’s analysis of our obligation to justice
provides the basis for a series of questions
about our economic relations with such
countries, and the advantages we secure from
them.
What does Beneficence require?
 Similar analyses are offered from the perspective
of our obligation to beneficence.
 While the imperfectness of the duty from Kant’s
perspective limits the capacity to address any
specific situation, Kant’s analysis clearly reveals
our obligation to participate in economic
relationships that are maximally respectful to the
humanity of the parties involved.
 Our goal should be to act in such a way as to
encourage and develop the autonomy of less
fortunate trading partners.
Kant vs. Utilitarianism
 Kantian Moral Reasoning:
 does not rank all possible institutional arrangements;
 is in principle less sensitive to issues concerning what
will cause what.
 Utilitarian Moral Reasoning:
 requires ranking all possible courses of actions;
 thus, requires much more causal knowledge than Kantian
moral reasoning;
 unlike Kantian reasoning, may allow or even require
short-term neglect or abandonment.