Ethics! Module 13: World Poverty

Photo: Colleen Hayes / NBC.

While Ethical Egoism suggests that you ought to be solely concerned about your own interests, most people tend to believe that the interests of others should matter in some way. One issue testing this idea concerns world poverty. Peter Singer argues that a basic humanitarian concern for others demands that you make some significant sacrifices in order to alleviate the evils of poverty.

We have 2 learning outcomes for this module on world poverty. At the end of it, you will be able to…

Summarize Peter Singer’s argument justifying why you should assist those in poverty, and
Reflect on whether you should be doing more to assist those in poverty.

Read & Annotate This:

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Context

Over 650 million people (about 9% of the global population) live on less than $2.15 a day, in a condition the World Bank refers to as extreme poverty. In Sub-Saharan Africa, around 35% of the population is living in extreme poverty, and about 1 child in 36 dies in the first month of life.

Those who live in extreme poverty frequently lack effective access to proper nutrition, adequate shelter, safe drinking water, and sanitation. As a result, they also bear the greatest burdens of famine and epidemic disease, and they also frequently face social and political conditions of unrest and systematic oppression.

In this classic article, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer (1972) argues that each one of us has a moral duty to provide whatever assistance we can to the global poor. But is Singer’s solution to world poverty too demanding?

One implication of Singer’s conclusion is that everyone should give up their luxuries and donate that money to charity instead. But is that a biased assumption? After all, what seems like a luxury to a successful white male (like Singer) might be a necessity for someone else. To flesh out that possibility, I have included (in the optional “Curious for More?” section below) an article by Tressie McMillan Cottom (2013). There Cottom argues that “useless status symbols”, like her own mother’s camel colored cape, could be what the poor, women, and persons of color absolutely need to in order be seen as “acceptable” by those in positions of authority.

Reading Questions

As you read, keep these questions in mind:

Peter Singer’s entire argument rests on only two premises to justify his conclusion that we have a moral obligation to assist those in poverty. What are these two premises? How does Singer justify them? One of these premises comes in “a strong and a moderate version” (Singer, 1972, p. 241) form—what is the difference between these two versions? Does that difference affect Singer’s conclusion?
Singer believes that there are two controversial aspects of his argument. One concerns proximity, and the other concerns whether others are also capable of providing assistance. How does Singer address these two concerns?
Singer claims this argument challenges a traditional distinction between duty and charity when it comes to poverty. How so?
Finally, Singer presents two objections to his argument. What are these two objections? How does he respond to them?

Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to answer questions like these on module quizzes and the unit exams.

References

Cottom, T. M. (2013, November 1). Why do poor people ‘waste’ money on luxury goods? Talking Points Memo. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/why-do-poor-people-waste-money-on-luxury-goods

Singer, P. (1972, Spring). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3), 229—243.