Rich and Poor Peter Singer

1
Rich and Poor Peter Singer

• Utilitarian Argument
• Singer argues that we are morally required to
  give all we can up to the point at which it
  interferes with our own subsistence/necessities.

2
Non-issues in defining our obligation to help

• Our proximity to those in need is irrelevant as
  far as our obligation is concerned.
• The ability of others to pay/help others is
  irrelevant as far as our obligation is concerned.
• Good that 200 can bring to us vs. saving a human
  life.

3
-Objections to giving so much to others

• If every citizen in affluent nations
  contributed, then I wouldnt have to give more
  than my fair share.
• Response But you can save a life in this real
  world and not in some ideal world.
• Government aid is sufficient
• Response U.S. aid is far below all other nations
  in foreign aid .09 of GDP/Your share will still
  save a life immediately.

4
Perspectives on World Hunger and the Extent of
Our Positive Duties Robert Van Wyk

• Estimates of the number of malnourished people
• 70 Million
• 460 Million
• 1 Billion
• Question What duties do individuals have to help?

5
Consequentialist approaches fail to give an
adequate answer to the question posed.

• Singer far to demanding of a moral duty
  (superogatory)
• Hardin contends that we never have to send food
  to those who cannot support themselves (morally
  wanting)

6
Negative Rights vs. Positive Rights

• Problem of world hunger from a negative rights
  perspective
• Individuals/Govt/Corp. ?Actions/policies affect
  the situation of others ? Therefore We have an
  obligation to help those we have harmed by our
  actions.

7
Positive vs. Negative Rights (cont.)

• Duties wealthy countries have to poor countries
• Compensation for past injustices even if the
  current generation of individuals did not
  perpetrate the harm.
• Not to harm
• It is the vulnerability of people to others
  (individually or collectively) that is the
  foundation of most (or all) of both our positive
  and negative duties to others.(345)

8
Seeking the mean between extremes

• Van Wyk is seeking a middle ground between Nozick
  and Singer.
• Estimate of what is needed for a minimally decent
  life
• Feeding the hungry
• Political and economic change
• Limits on population growth
• Nations would all determine this need, and tax
  individuals accordingly

9
Individual obligation in the absence of a fair
share scheme

• According to Van Wyk, there is a strict duty or
  obligation for an individual to give at least his
  or her fair share according to some plausible
  formula.
• Not a case where an individuals action can have
  a benefit only is everyone else also does the
  same action.

10
Our strict duty is to only do our fair share

• Requirement to do more than our fair share may
  interfere with other things we may choose to do
  with our life.
• This duty avoids the problem of overload.
• Duty in this case is agent specific.
• An additional duty to put pressure on the
  prevailing attitudes surrounding fair shares.

11
Considerations regarding fair shares

• Should not be beneficent to the point of need the
  beneficence of others.
• Should not give in a manner that makes those we
  are giving to less self-reliant and
  self-determining.
• Should be careful to avoid any appearance of
  intending to obligate the other person.

12
Some conditions under which aid may be withheld
by a wealthy nation

• Agriculture
• Population growth
• Political reforms necessary to make the poor
  country independent.