#7 World Hunger and Morality

Moral Hazard Basis

-When you reduce the cost of risky behavior, you get more of the risky behavior. ex: "When your comfortable you can do anything." ex: Buy Fire insurance for house. Insurance company gives you a smoke detector--make sure that you don't have fire. when your insured less worried house is going to burn down. buy insurance reducing cost of risky behavior--get more risky behavior. ex2: Seat-belts don't save lives. People feel more secure. Then people drive more aggressively==MORE accidents. Fewer people in cars die/pedestrains die.

3 Different Responses to Moral Question for rich countries to help poor:

1) CHARITY VIEW It is praiseworthy/good to help people in poor countries, but it is not morally required==>imperfect duty 2) MORAL REQUIREMENT VIEW/UTILIARIAN: We do have a perfect duty/we are OBLIGATED to help the poor. --Peter singer (utilitarian point of view), ONORA O'NEILL, & IMMANUEL KANT. --based on utilitarian ethic: maximize the amount of happiness, we would be maximizing happiness in the world--if we gave some of what we have to help the poor. ex: JUSTICE BASED/RIGHTS APPROACH: It is UNJUST not to help the poor. A) COMPENSATORY Justice: When you inflicted harm on someone, justice requires that you compensate them for that harm. ex: If you stole/inflicted harm on someone unjustly, you have to pay your debt by going to jail(balance scales). ex: Rich countries might be responsible for POVERTY colonialism, wars, mis-guided policies that harm them, trade-restrictions. B) DISTRIBUITIVE Justice: Benefits and burdens living in society should be distributed in a way that is JUST. -People have a right to a certain AMOUNT OF benefits and burdens in society. Might have to redistribute benefits/burdens in society. ex: Welfare programs in US: Redistribute wealth from rich to poor. need more--you get more. if you need less--you get less. C) Egalitarianism: To each equally. EVERYONE GETS THE SAME. 3) It is Affirmately WRONG to give money to people in poor countries. --Doomed to Starvation. Food production grows slowly compared to population which Grows MORE. --Malthus Says that population grow exponentially. Less food. FOOD PRODUCTION /FAMINE<People MALTHUS: VIEW IS WRONG **But Malthus didn't see with TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS we can INCREASE food production & population tapers off. **Shit from society where children work on farms/agriculture-->Industrial Society.

Objections/AGAINST Singers Argument:

1) Pond analogy is NOT an apt analogy. **LOOK FOR DIFFERENCES. Argue that there are differences between pond analogy and kid dying & child in Africa. 2) Singer's Obligation is TOO Extreme to help other people. 3) JOHN ARTHUR'S OBJECTION:

Example of Moral Hazard-Wrong to Give Aid

By giving aid to people in poor countries--->allowing them to continue bad behavior. --By protecting them costs of bad behavior(giving aid) leads to MORE bad behavior/allowing people to continue or take on bad habits.

Comparable Moral Significance:

COMPARABLE moral significance: to child's life ex: sacrificing another child's life==WOULD NOT have to do it. risking your life--comparable moral significance. **Singer obligated to help poor, as long as NOT sacrificing any COMPARABLE moral significance. MORAL SIGNIFICANCE: any reason not to help. ex: See child drowning and save child's life--you have to miss your art class--(more reasons not to help)

Imperfect Duty

Do not have obligation to perform. but wrong not to do it occasionally ex: Giving to Charity.

John Arthur's Objection to ______

John Arthur's OBJECTION to Peter Singer's Argument(singer obligated to help poor): **Arthur says singers focus is TOO NARROW. A) Arthur- Importance of Desert (what you deserve) --If person deserves suffering, they should endure the suffering. To each according to what they deserve. B) Peoples Personal Projects --People have other things that they are doing with their time other than helping the poor. People would rather do something else THAN give to poor. (obligations to family members are important) C) Arthur Says we Have =PROPERTY RIGHTS (its your eye don't have to give it away, just to increase social utility) -Singer ignores Property Rights. Utiliarain Maxmizing: Give your eye to someone today--maximize their happiness. ex: Giving up your own eye to save other people. Arthur says: If giving would Effectyour long term happiness(projects/property), THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE. (survival needs/phsycological needs).

Kant

Kant's Categorical Imperative,=each individual acts in a certain way and there is the same general rule that everyone follows. . These means that a person should always be treated as an end and have an intention Kant supported capital punishment for murderers.

Onora O'Neill's NEGATIVE ASPECT to : Kantian Theory:

O'Neal says: It imposes requirements on us, that we NOT do certain things -->restrictions on acceptable behavior ex: Kantain View prohibited from trade-restrictions that prevent their exports and keep them poor. say we can't sell cheap coffee to Americans--BUT CAN'T DO THAT.

Perfect Duty

Obligation to perform

Peter Singer

PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY: UTILITARIAN -Peter Singer Says WE HAVE AFFIRMATIVE DUTY/OBLIGATION to help the POOR. ex: be concerned with suffering of fish. Chimpanzee has more moral value then infants

Peter Singer's Argument in Standard Form:

Premise 1: Absolute Poverty(really poor) is Bad Premise 2: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of COMPARABLE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE, we ought to do it. (STRONG VERSION) Premise 2 PRIME: If it is ion ur power to percent something bad form happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of MORAL SIGNICIANCE, we ought to to do it. (weak version) Premise 3: We can prevent some absolute poverty without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance (by donating to charity) ________ c: WE OUGHT TO PREVENT SOME ABSOLUTE POVERTY.

Key Features of Singer's Argument:

Singer Concludes: WE OUGHT TO PREVENT SOME ABSOLUTE POVERTY. 1) "Proximity" HAS NO MORAL SIGNIFICANCE. A) Geographic/Spacial Proximity--idea that those are people in other countries--DOESN'T MATTER how far people are--SAME MORAL significance. B) Citizenship Proximity: No greater obligation to citizens than people in other countries. C) Impartiality even within countries(Family/friends NOT to be FAVORED over strangers)--Everyones interests count equally-utiliarian) 2) Existence of Other possible helpers--DOES NOT MATTER. (if i don't donate other people are available to donate--DOES NOT MATTER--because YOU have to help) 3) Very demanding Principle (instead of spending money on Play--money should go to other people--greater amount of happiness for others starving their happiness GREATER. **SINGER SAYS: ONLY time you can Refrain from helping other people when doing so would give up something of COMPARABLE MORAL IMPORTANCE (would not be utility maximizing) **Arthur says: sometimes benevolence can trump property rights

Peter's Singers Argument of _______.

Singer's POND Argument by Analogy: ex: see a pond and child is drowning in pond. You can save child in pond, with ease/OBLIGATION TO SAVE CHILD. SINGER argues by analogy -- Says there is a chid dying in Africa, you can save childs life by sending $$, YOU HAVE OBLIGATION to save child in Africa.

Onora O'Neill's POSITIVE ASPECT to the Kantain Theory

There are certain things that we are OBLIGATED TO DO. --Respecting peoples autonomy & HELP PEOPLE become MORE autonomous. Promote Moral Agency & AUTONOMY in the world. ex: obligation to preserve life, and foster human capacity. ex: woman in poor country: O'Neill says we HAVE AN OBLIGATION to PROMOTE THEIR AUTONOMY/THEY CAN BE TREATED AS EQUAL. vs: Utilitarian Singer: Doesn't see poor woman as Unhappy. Sees them as happy in their 2nd Class Status.

Life Boat Ethics

Try to help people in poor countries, they are going to SWAMP us all. Better not to help people in other countries.

Moral Question:

What extent are wealthy countries like America RESPONSIBLE for death in poor countries like Burma? ex: