PETER SINGER Poverty Absolute Poverty Singer begins by

PETER SINGER Poverty

Absolute Poverty ■ – – – Singer begins by defining poverty. Short of food Cannot save money Cannot afford to send kids to school. Home is unstable, inefficient, in need of constant repair. No source of safe drinking water, rendering illness and malnutrition likely ■ In most Western democracies, most of us are not poor like this.

Consequences ■ Singer notes how governments and individuals both spend very little on poverty. ■ Governments, also, spend inconsistently. ■ Yet as Singer says, millions die from absolute poverty, and we all know this. ■ And, this is all needless.

Absolute Affluence ■ The opposite of absolute poverty is absolute affluence. ■ Such affluence is defined by – …a significant amount of income above the level needed to provide for the basic needs of ones self and dependents. ■ Many Americans and Europeans are affluent in this sense. ■ So we want for little, really.

Murder? ■ When we allow others to die because of poverty, is this murder? – Each of us has the opportunity to do something about the situation, such as giving our time or money to organizations that are helping provide health care, safe drinking water, etc. ■ So, if murder includes our knowingly letting people die, we are murderers.

Murder and Allowing 1. Different motives for killing and letting die. 2. It is not difficult to refrain from murder. But it is difficult to save the world. 3. Murder is usually certain. Saving is quite uncertain. 4. Murder has an intended victim. Saving often is diffuse, for no persons are known. 5. People are responsible for murder, not for inaction.

Explanation verses Justification ■ Singer admits that these are relevant differences between murder and letting die. ■ Yet they are not the whole story. – Such differences mark off killing and letting die and explain why we normally think murder is worse. But explaining our attitudes is not to justify them. ■ Explanation and justification, then, are different. ■ Justification is more difficult to really do.

Motive ■ Singer responds to these differences between murder and letting die one by one. ■ True, he says, less motive mitigates blame. ■ Significantly, though, a lack of motive to kill does not eliminate blame entirely

Difficulty ■ Singer admits that, true enough, refraining from murder is easy but saving the world is hard. ■ When we ask too much of people, they do nothing. ■ Still, he responds that the options are only not that we must save the world, or we should give up. ■ Instead, we might try to help.

Certainty ■ Singer admits that the lack of any certain recipients of our actions make us less responsible. ■ But this is a matter of degree. ■ When are certain enough to know our acts will have an effect, we are still responsible.

Identifiable Victims ■ Singer argues that identifying victims or recipients is often irrelevant. ■ When we anticipate that our acts will probably have an effect, who they effect is not important. ■ So identifying a victim is not important. ■ When their are victims, they are equally hurt, after all.

Actions and Omissions ■ Singer notes how Locke and Nozick, we must respect each other, but do not owe anyone anything. ■ But actions and omissions both have consequences. ■ Singer insists we cannot respect others by watching them die, as though we are not to blame.

Drowning Kid ■ Singer cites a story about saving a drowning kid on the way to work, even if inconvenient. ■ And then, he cites this principle: – If we can prevent something very bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do so. ■ This principle of comparable moral significance applies to the poverty case. ■ So we should help.

Official Argument 1. If we can prevent something very bad without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, then we should do it. 2. Extreme poverty is very bad. 3. We can help without much sacrifices. 4. Therefore, we ought to prevent extreme poverty as much as we can.

Effort? ■ Perhaps, Singer admits, we will wonder if, given all our efforts, will make any difference. ■ What if all our efforts amount to nothing?

Five Objections ■ – – – Singer notes five objections to helping to eradicate poverty. Taking care of own- help our own, first. Property rights Population and Triage Government should help, not us. Too high a standard- helping imposes too high a standard to be reasonable. ■ So let us go over these in order.

We Come First ■ Perhaps, it might be said, we only have responsibilities to take care of our own. ■ True, we have more kinship with our own. ■ Actually, Singer notes, we have evolved to do so, as it insures certain advantages. ■ But as Singer says, when our kin are already taken care of, we ought to help.

Property Rights ■ Some insist that when we have worked for things, we need not help anyone. ■ So perhaps it is laudable to save the world, but optional. ■ Singer responds that working for things is not isolated, since others help to get them. ■ So our things are not gotten alone.

Population ■ Yet if we try to save the world and succeed, would this not overpopulate the world? ■ Singer says this is a triage mentality. – We would aid only those countries where we might make the difference in bringing food and population into balance. ■ Just as in lifeboat cases, we can only save the strong.

Population Response ■ Consequentialists, Singer predictions of doom. says, can challenge the ■ With housing, medicine, etc. population rises. ■ But then, Singer notes, with an appreciation of wealth, it often levels off. ■ Therefore, we need not let millions die.

Government? ■ Perhaps, though, such helping is solely the responsibility of government- not people. ■ As Singer admits, governments do not give. When they do, they are selfish about it. ■ Still, we are still obligated to do give, too.

Utilitarianism too Difficult? ■ Singer lastly addresses the idea that trying to give to help poverty is too difficult. ■ Indeed, this is a common criticism of utilitarianism. ■ As Susan Wolf notes, if we did give more, life would be dull. ■ So, being good would be joyless.

How to be Good ■ But actually, Singer says, life would only be joyless because now, so few give at all. ■ Social reformers end up doing way too much. ■ But actually, if governments and individuals gave more, it would be easy to help.