World Hunger

1
World Hunger Moral Obligation
World Hunger Moral Obligation
2
Overview

• Are People the Problem?
• The Case for Helping Other Countries
• The Case Against Helping Other Countries
• Conclusion

3
1. Are People the Problem?

• The Bet
• In 1980, two secular prophets made a 1,000 bet
  about the future of the planet.

4
Paul Ehrlich

• Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb
  (1968) and How to be a Survivor, bet that the
  world would get worse and worse.
• This is an example of the apocalyptic attitude
  one sometimes encounters in discussions of world
  hunger and the environment.

5
Julian Simon

• Julian Simon, Professor of Business
  Administration at the University of Maryland and
  a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, bet that
  the world would get better and better.

6
The Terms of the Bet

• Ehrlich picked the indicators the change in the
  price of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and
  tungsten I real, uninflated dollars over a 10
  year period.
• If prices went up, Simon would pay Ehrlich
• If prices went down, Ehrlich would pay Simon

7
The Outcome

• Ehrlich lost.
• The price of all five metals went down, even in
  real dollars
• Ehrlich has not made a bet since then.
• The interesting question that this raises is
  whether fewer people is the answer to the problem
  of world hunger. Simon maintains that people are
  the real source of wealth in the world, and that
  we need morenot fewerpeople if the world is to
  get better and better.

8
Population Trends, 1950-2050

• Source
• http//www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch1/page7.ht
  m1

9
Population Trends
10
Changing Fertility Rates
11
Total Fertility Rate 2004Over 2.1 (replacement
rate)

• 1 Somalia 6.84
• 2 Afghanistan 6.75
• 3 Niger 6.75
• 4 Uganda 6.74
• 5 Yemen 6.67
• 6 Congo, 6.62
• 25 Rwanda 5.49
• 36 Sudan 4.85
• 49 Iraq 4.28
• 52 Pakistan 4.14
• 113 Greenland 2.41

Source CIA The World Factbook
http//www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko
rder/2127rank.html
12
Total Fertility Rate 20041.6 2.1

• 135 Chile 2.02
• 143 Brazil 1.93
• 153 Thailand 1.88
• 154 Ireland 1.87
• 162 New Zealand 1.79
• 165 Norway 1.78
• 167 Australia 1.76
• 172 Denmark 1.74
• 173 Finland 1.73
• 179 Cuba 1.66
• 180 Sweden 1.66
• 181 United Kingdom 1.66
• 182 Netherlands 1.66
• 187 Canada 1.61

13
Total Fertility Rate 2004Below 1.6

• 194 European Union 1.48
• 195 Portugal 1.47
• 196 Switzerland 1.43
• 202 Japan 1.39
• 203 Poland 1.39
• 204 Germany 1.39
• 208 Austria 1.36
• 209 Greece 1.33
• 215 Italy 1.28
• 216 Spain 1.28
• 218 Russia 1.27
• 220 Korea, South 1.26
• 223 Lithuania 1.19
• 224 Singapore 1.05
• 226 Hong Kong 0.91

14
Changing Mortality Rates

• Although fertility rates are declining, mortality
  rates are also important and they are creating a
  counter-pressure in terms of population decrease.
• Overall, people are living longer
• Far fewer people die in early childhood (5 years
  old or younger)
• The overall effect is that, although fewer people
  are being born, they stay around on the earth for
  a longer time!
• Another important factor is the impact of
  HIV-AIDS, especially in Africa.

15
HIV/AIDSrates

• 1 Swaziland 38.80 2003 est.
• 2 Botswana 37.30 2003 est.
• 3 Lesotho 28.90 2003 est.
• 4 Zimbabwe 24.60 2001 est.
• 5 South Africa 21.50 2003 est.
• 6 Namibia 21.30 2003 est.
• 7 Zambia 16.50 2003 est.
• 57 Russia 1.10 2001 est.
• 59 India 0.90 2001 est.
• 63 Venezuela 0.70 2001 est.
• 64 Spain 0.70 2001 est.
• 69 United States 0.60 2003 est.
• 85 Mexico 0.30 2003 est.
• 87 Canada 0.30 2003 est.
• 108 Australia 0.10 2003 est.
• 122 Ireland 0.10 2001 est.
• 168 Svalbard 0.00 2001

16
The Anaconda Effect

• Rapid population changes often look like an
  anaconda snake that has just eaten a large
  animal.
• Just as we can see the animal moving through the
  snake, so we can see the change moving through
  history.
• The baby boom, for example, moves through history
  like a bulge, affecting the number of people in a
  given age distribution.

17
Age Distribution, 1
18
Age Distribution, 2
19
Aging Populations

• http//www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch2/page5.ht
  m
• Source U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000).

20
United States Foreign Aid, 1

• Net ODA in US Dollars

http//www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi
d.asp
21
United States Foreign Aid, 2

• Net ODA as percentage of GNP

http//www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAi
d.asp
22
The Case for HelpingOther Countries

• The Argument from Virtue
• The Issue of Complicity
• The Group Egoist Argument
• The Strict Utilitarian Argument
• The Basic Rights Argument
• The Kantian Imperfect Duty Argument

23
The Argument from Virtue

• The Moral Force of Suffering
• In the face of deep suffering, we cannot help but
  to respond with compassion
• The Issue of Luck
• The Place of the Children

24
The Issue of Complicity

• We dont deserve to be born into an affluent
  society any more than we deserve to be born into
  an impoverished society
• However, we do benefit from the exploitation of
  poorer societies

25
The Group Egoist Argument

• There may be good, self-centered reasons for
  aiding other countries
• The basic argument
• Moral Premise We ought to do whatever helps our
  groups welfare.
• Empirical Premise Helping some other countries
  will benefit the United States
• Conclusion We ought to help some other countries.

26
The Strict Utilitarian Argument

• Peter Singer has argued that as utilitarians we
  ought to seek to reduce the overall amount of
  suffering in the world, even at great cost to
  those of us who have more affluent life styles..

27
The Basic Rights Argument

• Henry Shue, in Basic Rights, has argued that
• everyone has a right to minimal subsistence
• this is a positive right, i.e., one that imposes
  obligations on others to assist in meeting this
  right

28
The Kantian Imperfect Duty Argument

• Kant distinguishes between
• Perfect duties require specific actions and
  conditions that can be met all the time, such as
  the duty to tell the truth
• Imperfect duties require that we perform some
  among a group of actions
• The duty to benevolence is an imperfect duty,
  requiring us to help some of the poor and
  starving some of the time.

29
Killing and Letting Die

• Some philosophers, such as Peter Singer, have
  questioned the moral significance of the
  distinction between killing and letting die.
• Is it morally wrong to let someone die when we
  can easily present their death without great risk
  or harm to ourselves?

30
The Case against Helping Other Countries

• The Lifeboat Argument
• The Effectiveness Argument
• The Libertarian Argument
• The Particularity Argument
• The Liberal State Argument

31
The Lifeboat Argument

• Garrett Hardin, in Lifeboat Ethics, maintains
  that we have a duty not to help the poor and
  starving of other countries.

32
The Lifeboat Metaphor

• Hardin claims that rich nations are like
  lifeboats in a sea with the poor of the world
  swimming around them.
• If the rich nations let the poor ones into the
  lifeboat, the boat will be swamped and everyone
  will be lost.

http//www.es.ucsb.edu/faculty/hardin.htm
33
Evaluating the Metaphor

• Presumes rich nations are like boats, poor are
  like swimmers
• Presumes ultimate fate of lifeboat is independent
  of fate of those in the water
• Ignores the question of whether some may have
  been pushed into the water.

34
The Effectiveness Argument

• Claims that aid just doesnt work
• Bureaucracies tend to perpetuate themselves and
  the problem they administer
• Local economies can be destroyed by aid
• Aid can create unhealthy dependence
• Local corruption can prevent aid from reaching
  its intended recipients

35
The Libertarian Argument

• Libertarians claim we have only negative rights
  and only negative duties, I.e., duties of
  non-interference.
• Libertarians see the right to property as being
  almost as important as the right to life--thus
  there must be an extremely strong justification
  for depriving people of their property.

36
The Particularity Argument

• Special Obligation to Take Care of Our Own
• The Efficiency Argument
• Epistemological Considerations

37
Special Obligation to Take Care of Our Own

• Advocates of particularity maintain that we have
  a special obligation to take care of our own,
  I.e., our family and loved ones, our town, our
  nation.
• This take precedence over any obligations to help
  those who are distant from us.

38
The Efficiency Argument

• Some advocates of particularity maintain that,
  whatever our moral obligations may be, it is
  simply more efficient for us to take care of our
  own.
• This gives us a moral division of labor in
  which each group is entrusted with caring for the
  welfare of that group as a whole.

39
Epistemological Considerations

• Advocates of particularity also maintain that
  local people are best equipped to know what will
  be best for local people.
• Correlatively, we are in the best position to
  know what is best for those close to us.

40
The Liberal State Argument

• Some advocates of liberalism maintain that the
  liberal state can only function well--that is,
  provide its citizens with what they need--if it
  rests on a solid economic foundation.
• Consequently, the state is justified in
  restricting immigration, etc. to protect the
  minimal level of economic well-being of the state.

41
Conclusion

• Short term aid
• Long term aid
• A Common World