A Solution to World Hunger?

Peter Singer in his article argues that we are bound by morality to be extraordinarily charitable to people suffering from poverty in the 3^rd world country and that it is immoral for us to spend money on luxury items which include everything but the necessities.  Singer says that morality gives us no choice but to sacrifice all our financial security and any surplus income by discussing 2 simple examples where we can all agree on what ought to be done and drawing parallels from them to a typical American middle-class household with “surplus income” but does not donate to save the children who are dying from causes that can easily be avoided or treatable such as hunger or diarrhea.  I want to simply walk through his examples and consider what possible repercussions that we may face if a significant number of us follow through on his solution.

His first example involves a case from the Brazilian film “Central Station”.  The main character, Dora, is a retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sitting at the station writing letters for the illiterate.  She is given a chance to receive $1000 and all she has to do is persuade a homeless 9-year-old boy to an address where she’s told that he’d get adopted by a wealthy family.  She delivers the boy and with the money, decides to purchase a television set, which she didn’t have, with some of the money.  However, her neighbor points out that the boy is too old to be adopted and that they’re going to kill him and harvest his organs for transplant.  With this revelation, she decides to take the boy back the next morning.  Her only redemption at the point would be to put herself in considerable risk to save the boy, as the film demonstrates.  Singer contemplates the possibility of her telling the neighbour that it’s a tough world and he was just a street kid after all.  This reaction, as all of us can agree, would be despicable and morally wrong.  Singer points out that we, average middle class Americans, are much better off than Dora, yet we fail to contribute enough to charity that could save a boy’s life in poor countries.  In a conservative calculation, if we contribute $200, a 2-year-old child can safely grow up to be 6.  We are quick to judge Dora, who can finally relax a little if she’s just a bit ignorant of the boy’s immediate demise but most Americans won’t give up a few nice meals in restaurants or a couple of name brand clothing to save a child’s life who is dying from easily treatable diseases.

The next example involves a bit more abstract situation from a philosopher from New York University, Peter Unger, and his book Living high and Letting Die (1996).  In this example, Bob is close to retirement and he has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti.  He isn’t able to insure it but he knows the rising value of this rare car and he can sell it at any point to live comfortably for the rest of his life.  One day, Bob goes for a drive and parks the car near a railway siding and goes for a walk.  As he does so, he spots a runaway train with no one aboard running down the track.  He sees that, on that track, a figure of a small child, likely to be killed by the train.  He can’t stop the train and he’s too far away from the child to save him.  However, he can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked.  Then nobody will be killed but the train will destroy his Bugatti.  Thinking of the joy of owning the car and the financial security that comes with it, Bob decides not to throw the switch and the child is killed.  For many years, Bob lives comfortably and with financial security.

Most of us would agree that Bob’s action was gravely wrong and Unger agrees.  However, Singer points out again that there is no conceivable difference between what we do when we choose not to donate our surplus income and what Bob does.  We care about our financial security and we do what we can to be prosperous and thrive while ignoring the needs of many children who are dying in places we know of.  One point to be made about Bob’s example, as Singer points out, is how far we should take this example until we agree with Bob’s decision.  What if his foot was stuck in the railroad?  Would the looming possibility or certainty of losing his leg exempt him from moral ramification of not throwing the switch?  This relates to the question of how much we should contribute to charity, if we do decide to donate.  How much comfort should we lose?  How much convenience?  Should we go bankrupt trying to help others?

Singer says that the above hypothetical points can get farcical very fast, and he is not trying to say that we should give our arms and legs to save others.  He is saying that we should give everything else besides the necessities.  For example, an average household earning $50,000 a year should try to give $20,000 of that to charity and a household earning $100,000 a year should try to give $70,000 of that after the $30,000 necessities.

I’m rather surprised as I finish reading this article that Singer never acknowledges the economic impact this would have on “wealthy countries”.  He is challenging those in the first world nations to give up all luxury and live on bare necessities but what would happen to these nations if a significant number of us do follow through on Singer’s proposal?  Barring any complications on defining “bare necessities”, as he says, roughly $30,000/year for average household, I would think that if we were to give up consumerism, the nation would probably collapse.  This is rather hypothetical and I’m not an economist but if a significant number of us all give up going to restaurants, buying new televisions or the new Apple product, a significant number of us would be directly affected by that.  People have jobs in these industries, not just a small portion of people, but I would speculate more than a majority.  Most of us live dependent on the sustainability of consumerism.  Why Singer never addresses the immediate and blatant consequences of his proposal is baffling.

The above is a utilitarian argument against Singer’s proposal; Singer admits his utilitarian worldview so I doubt he’d have a problem with that.  However, I am not a utilitarian so I must contemplate in terms of moral implications.  I cannot agree with Bob’s decision to not throw the switch to save his Bugatti but at the same time, I would not “throw” all my savings to save the children in need.  I value my family and I would hope to have a degree of financial security by the time I retire.  This is rather self-centered and family-centered, which Singer disapproves of as my family probably will not die of hunger even if I don’t have money saved up for a rainy day in this country.  However, I do plan on being charitable when circumstances allow me to do so.  This is far from what Singer would have me do but the definition of “to the best of my abilities” differs from Singer’s and there is no conceivable reason why I should change that.   I cannot save every dying children by myself; I value the economic status of this nation; and I do prioritize my family’s financial stability and security, and I view losing them as giving up an arm or a leg if I were to give them up to save others.