Practical Ethics — Rich and Poor

Introduction📝

Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, through his chapter of Rich and Poor talks about whether the “affluent” citizens is intrinsically responsible for the extreme poverty that exists in the world today. He also raises the question that whether the affluent part of the population should be obliged to help the population that is poverty-ridden. Peter Singer argues that affluent citizens have extensive obligations to world poverty.

Peter starts his justification for his stance by listing some facts provided by the World Bank that highlights the contrast between those who struggle to meet their basic requirements to live and our way of life. This contrast provides a strong visual image in the mind of the readers which makes the most objections against his stance, morally inadequate. His position on the obligation of individuals to fight world poverty is quite straightforward and is based on three philosophical premises.

The premises are constructed carefully and seem to be logical. It forces both the non-consequentialist and the consequentialist to accept it. To demonstrate the principle he puts forward a thought experiment: “Imagine you are walking to your office in the morning and on your way, there’s a pond, While walking past it, you see that a child is in danger of drowning in it, he is crying and is in distress. You are tall and strong and you know that it is in your powers to rescue him safely. Although in the process there is no physical harm involved however you will get your clothes muddy and wet. Now you will have to go back home to change into new clothes and you’d be late for work “. Singer challenges the readers to question their own sense of morality by emphasising on the use of common sense while making any kind of judgements on moral significances.

International Aid? 🤑

0.19 per cent of the total Gross National income of the United States is given away in aid to poverty-stricken countries. According to Singer the sum total of that amount is scandalously trivial if compared to what they earn, to give a better idea this equates to less than 25 cents in every 100$ of gross national income. I believe this amount is not at all trivial and if that amount is instead used in the research and development of genetically modified crops or, medicines and curing the diseases that currently have no cure, it would save much more lives than just giving money in aid. In the end, it is about the probabilities of both the events being successful. It is the probability of the modified crops feeding more people Vs the 0.19 per cent actually being used to alleviate poverty.

Singer raises the point regarding motivation and intention while discussing the similarities of letting die vs murder. The original argument followed that if I spend opulently or if I do not provide aid in the form of money to the poor, I do not intend to see them dead or kill them per se, they die because of the conditions that weren’t imposed by me on them. On the other hand, a killer has malice intentions of sadism or some equally unpleasant motive to commit a crime. Therefore the two cases are not all comparable in any sense. If I am a murderer according to Singer then what is the difference between someone who commits murder, someone who chose not to commit murder despite having sadistic intent and me? To understand this better let us take the example of the trolley problem: The thought experiments urge you to take a decision of either killing one person by changing the trolley’s direction or let the follow its original route and kill five people, this dilemma has an inherent presumption that all lives are equal. When presented with this dilemma most people chose to save the lives of the 5 subjects and were ready to bear of the burden of someone’s death as long as it produces the greatest good for the greatest number, a typical consequentialistic approach. Although this dilemma begs the question, are all lives equal in reality? Is comparing the Prime Minister of India with a daily wage labourer justified?

In my opinion, every citizen has different importance based on societal hierarchies and how much they affect the economy of the nation, in our example, PMO India will naturally have more importance than a daily wage labourer.

Communism!💸

In Rich and Poor, according to GiveWell organisation, it takes about 600 to 1200 dollars to save a life. Now suppose we have person 1 who works hard and earns 1800$ for her service. Since she only needs 600$ to meet her basic requirements, he has an extra amount of 1200$ left. Person 2 and 3 are unemployed, have no source of income and are living a miserable life. If we say that person 1 is obliged to give away his surplus to person 1 and 2 as aid, everyone now has 600$ and can now live their lives with basic requirements met. In this scenario, person 1 worked twice as hard to get the money he ended up with, the question that arises here is what is person 1 work’s worth? This scenario can be extrapolated and concluded with person 1 not working at all and instead wait for someone else to provide him with 600$ or more to live a basic life. The zeal to be competent nullifies when external monetary help is provided, this is one of the reasons why capitalism proves to be more effective and productive than communism where recourses are divided. In India, it is a common sight at traffic signals, females carrying small children begging for money and food to feed themselves. The question that comes to my mind is why do they not work? Instead, they are begging and asking for money while living in pathetic conditions. Through this lifestyle, they are jeopardizing their own health and also of “their” children. Even after the government has provided so many subsidies and free education to children, if they still do not send their children to school, why should the rich be blamed for their pitiful conditions? Where do we draw the line between who to help and who to not if they are themselves to be blamed for their decisions?

In the chapter, Singer talks about a metaphor by Garrett Hardin: rich nations are like occupants of a lifeboat. This lifeboat is in a sea full of drowning people. The dilemma of the situation is whether the occupants should help people who are drowning. According to this metaphor, the rich should leave the poor to starve and continue with their lavish life or else the poor will bring the rich down. Hardin suggested that in such a scenario the poor should be left alone until disease or famine reduces their population, thus recovering the balance. As studies have shown, the global population is continuing to rise at dangerous rates and thus Hardin thoughts were definitely in the right place. I believe the problem that Hardin tried to tackle is a genuine problem as it is seen in India where the population is much more than the carrying capacity of the country. Although it can be theoretically argued that humans can capture other planets and solve the problem of overpopulation, but it is very unlikely. Thus keeping lifeboat ethics as a backup plan, in case science and positivism is not able to solve overpopulation, can’t hurt.

References

Singer, Peter. 1993. Practical Ethics — Chapter 8: Rich and Poor.