Famine, Affluence, and Morality - Essay Example

?In reading the articles “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” by Peter Singer, and “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, by Garrett Hardin, it is impossible not to notice the overwhelming attention to the topic of world poverty and underdeveloped, impoverished nations. Mr. Singer argues that, in no uncertain terms, the world is not doing enough to help those that need it, and in fact those that can help have a moral obligation to do so. Mr. Hardin argues that while help is certainly possible for those that need it, the likelihood of being able to help everyone is a reality that will never be attained due to the limited amount of space and shrinking resources. I find that both articles are very well written, and as previously stated, both make their point on their issues, though Singer does so in a more antagonistic, provoking manner, while Hardin seems to remain impartial while giving concrete examples to support his position. After reading these two articles, I find myself disagreeing wholeheartedly with Mr. Singer, on the basis that a nation should look within its own borders and fix the problems that plague it from within before even beginning to give aid to any other countries that may be in need. While I agree that there may be a moral obligation to provide aid and assistance, it should first be provided to those that reside within the borders of a given nation, before being provided elsewhere. Mr. Singer is fixated on a situation occurring in Bengal, while providing general evidence that nations capable of sending aid have not done enough to help. However, he fails to provide concrete, quantitative statistics on the nations that he is citing as able to provide aid to Bengal. There is no concrete evidence given to suggest what is happening within the nations that are able to provide aid, and no other examples other than criticism of those nations who choose to build luxury items rather than send aid. For example, Mr. Singer states that “Australia’s aid amounts to less than one-twelfth the cost of the Sydney’s new opera house.” He further states that Britain, another country able to give aid to Bengal, has “non-recoverable costs of the Anglo-French Concorde Project already in excess of ?275,000,000.” Yet he does not mention the per capita statistics of these two countries specifically, citing only that “they are able to give aid”. Mr. Singer also fails to mention that most large projects such as the opera house and transport systems are, inevitably, taxpayer funded over a long period of time. This in and of itself creates a vicious cycle which, again, Mr. Singer does not mention: higher taxes means less money in the pockets of the citizens, which means less to give to others. It seems as though Mr. Singer is trying to make people feel guilty for having luxuries while there are others that do not, which is hardly the basis for any moral argument that one should give money. Mr. Hardin, in fact, says this in another, perhaps more realistic way by stating “Some say they feel guilty about their good luck. My reply is simple: Get out and yield your place to others.” Just because one has the resources to share, does not mean that they should. It should be the choice of each and every person and/or country if they choose to share, or if they choose to use that money where it is most needed, which may well be within the borders of their own country. Another issue to look at is the fund that is being donated to. Mr. Singer mentions the Bengal Relief Fund. What proof do people have that the Bengal Relief Fund will actually get the money to actually assist others? In 2001, the World Food Program received notice that one million people in Zimbabwe would be “in urgent need of food aid within a month”; however, the government, after “holding out the begging bowl”, refused to allow anyone but themselves to distribute that food (LoBaido). The World Food Program would have no way of knowing if the goods that were donated actually made it to the people in need of aid, or if it would be stockpiled by a government that wished to pad its own pantries. The same still holds true today. There are those that refuse to donate to charitable causes because only half, or a quarter, of what they donate actually makes its way to who needs it. The rest is taken for that mysterious heading in budgets known as “expenses”. While it is understandable and even agreeable that expenses exist, any fund that exists should not take from those that need their assistance to support themselves. Since 2007, the United States has been gripped by first a housing crash, then a recession that some call a depression. There are still a large number of people in the United States living in poverty and often going hungry, despite market reports that jobs are coming back, the economy is recovering, and the recession that “officially ended in 2009” (Nichols). Mr. Singer states in his article, “most people will agree that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care is bad.” He is right in that sense, in possibly the only statement I concur with in his entire article. It is bad, therefore it needs attention, but the attention must first be given within the borders of the nation before being sent elsewhere. The United States poverty rate climbed to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% in 2009, and median income in the nation has fallen to a mere $49,445 per year (Nichols). Worse yet, there are 6.3% of the population that live in what is known as “deep poverty”, or with incomes less than half the poverty level at $11,157 for a couple with two children (Nichols). With apologies to Mr. Singer, I do think that these families are a bit more concerned about how food is going to land on their table, even with public assistance programs available, than on any table in Bengal or other distant countries. Recently a movement called the “99% movement” has begun in the United States, with Americans raging on the disparity between the “top 1%” and the other 99%, based on statements that 1% of the nation controls the wealth and income of America. The rationale states that “given that we are all created equal, it is not fair that anyone should be that much richer than anyone else.” (“99americans.org”). Mr. Singer, however, frequently gives examples of “per capita countries” that are able to give. I am sure that if he looked at the United States as a “per capita country”, he would state that we as a nation are able to give; however, again, most cannot, for the reasons previously stated. Perhaps Mr. Singer needs to take a different view of his statements and look at regional and individual family statistics, instead of grouping everyone together into one lump country and saying that they can give. Going back to the original point, given this fact, there are some for whom giving anything is impossible, because they simply have nothing to give. Mr. Hardin also makes another excellent point: resources are not getting any bigger. He states that “people inside the lifeboats are doubling in numbers every 87 years; people outside the lifeboats are doubling every 35 years.” He further states that “resources are dwindling”. Even if wealthy nations were to donate to nations that were not, what is to say that it could last indefinitely? Chances are, it could not, as nothing lasts forever, and sooner or later aid would run out. Therefore, it may be a kinder solution not to send anything at all, and keep countries from being dependent on those that, at the current time, have the resources to give but eventually will not. Mr. Singer also states “people do not in any way feel ashamed or guilty about spending money on a new car or new clothes instead of famine relief.” He is right in that sense, they most likely do not. But they do not feel guilty because they earned the money that is making the purchase, and because the person purchasing clothes or a car needs them more than they need to give money to famine relief. Mr. Singer, in my opinion, should have included suggestions on how to give “charitable contributions” if people cannot work due to lack of clothing, cars, or other basic necessities. He also tries to make the point that “we would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue wearing our old clothes and give the money to famine relief” but again, I disagree. Old, worn-out, and poor-fitting clothes, especially on children, can cause a lifetime of problems from pneumonia in cold weather to blisters and broken toes if one has no shoes or ill-fitting socks. Again, the money must be spent on what is close to home, before being sent elsewhere. While I do not doubt that there is a moral obligation to help others, I do heartily disagree with Mr. Singer and his insistence that aid should be sent to foreign countries before being spent closer to home. If issues facing so-called “wealthy” countries were dealt with first, and possibly remedied or even eliminated before looking outside of their borders, there would be even more aid to spread to the rest of the world. People must get their own houses in order first, and make sure their own needs are provided for, before looking to give aid to others. Works Cited Hardin, Garrett. “Lifeboat Ethics: A Case Against Helping the Poor.” Psychology Today. (1974): n. page. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. . “Home of the 99% of Americans Movement.” 99americans.org. SRS Solutions, 2011. Web. 10 Nov 2011. . LoBaido, Anthony C. “Land-Grab Policy Causes Zimbabwe Famine.” WorldNet Daily 20 Nov 2001. n. pag. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. . Nichols, Austin. “Poverty in the United States.” The Urban Institute. The Urban Institute, 13 Sep 2011. Web. 10 Nov 2011. . Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1.3 (1972): 229-243. Web. 10 Nov. 2011. . Read More