Compassion, Morality, and Global Hunger: A Balanced Perspective (Singer and Arthur)

Have you ever felt compassion for the less fortunate? Do you think that you ought to do more to help those individuals? Well in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate even if it may cause relative discomfort. Whereas in World Hunger and Moral Obligation, John Arthur argues that Singer is being too extreme, and his solution is impractical. In this paper, I will begin by creating counterarguments that show how Singer’s and Arthur’s moral codes are flawed, and why, to a certain extent, they both are right. Thereafter, I will attempt to create a moderate view by articulating the points stated by both Singer and Arthur.

Peter Singer begins by stating a few key principles on which he will later base his arguments. Firstly, he begins by stating that:

“suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad”. Singer goes on to say that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”.

Here, Singer is introducing the idea of a balance scale, where one can determine whether he should prevent something bad from happening or not based on its moral value.

To prove his point, Singer uses the analogy of a drowning child.

“If I am walking past a shallow pond, and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of a child would presumably be a very bad thing”

Furthermore, Singer suggests that this analogy does not regard distance as “It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is my neighbor’s child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.” (Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, 2016)

In “World Hunger and Moral Obligation”, John Arthur argues against Peter Singer’s code by suggesting that it is highly impractical. He begins by differentiating between negative and positive rights. Negative rights are non-contractual and exist naturally. Whereas positive rights are rights of “recipience” and, unlike negative rights, are contractual. Arthur argues that since the action of helping someone in need is a positive right, and no contract exists, there is no obligation to help an underprivileged stranger.

Furthermore, Arthur introduces the idea of “Desert”, which suggests that someone is entitled to something based on their intrinsic merit. Arthur argues that if an individual has worked harder than another, he has no obligation to provide for an individual who hasn’t worked as hard. (Person A, is a poor person who has not worked as hard as rich Person B, then Person B has no obligation to provide for him or his family.)

Arthur concludes that all moral codes must be rational for humans to support and contends that Singer’s belief is irrational, therefore, cannot be considered a legitimate moral code. He states that humankind shares a universal moral code, in which one has to abide by the laws of consequence and entitlement. Implementing Singer’s extreme moral code would reject these basic principles, which would cause a drastic change to the moral code that humanity has used for millennia.

When Singer creates the metaphorical balance scale, he suggests that only if someone suffers something of a “comparable moral importance”, they are excused from preventing the bad (Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, 2016). But this statement begs the question, what is morally comparable to saving peoples’ lives? I’d argue, that Singer’s argument is forcing one to prevent bad, as there is nothing morally comparable to saving someone’s life. Therefore, regardless of any situation, one would have to stop the bad from happening despite of his social and financial status as Singer specifies that the balance scale is weighed on the units of “moral importance”, not social or financial importance. Although money has a “moral importance”, relative to saving someones life, it is morally insignificant.

Arthur, on the other hand, concludes that:

“a reasonable [moral] code would require people to help when there is no substantial cost to themselves.”

Here, Arthur says that one’s donations should not cause significant damage to himself. I’d argue that this code that Arthur is suggesting is already in place, and is absolutely failing. Although I think Singer’s solution is a bit extreme, his code essentially, guarantees the ending of world hunger. Whereas Arthur’s code, which we can see implemented in the modern world, does not tackle the problem of world hunger, which is the supposed goal of these moral codes.

I believe that one must do what he can to help stop bad from happening. Considering that people of different social and financial statuses’ exist in this world, we need a practical model which also helps prevent the bad. Yet, we cannot force the poor or less fortunate to give up large sums of wealth to prevent something bad from happening, as this would be highly impractical and unjust. Therefore, I suggest that the amount of monetary prevention (to stop the bad) is dependent on one’s personal net worth. The UN World Food Program says that “We need $40 billion dollars per year to feed all of the world's hungry people and end global hunger by 2030” (UN Food World Program, How much would it cost to end world hunger?, 2022). By asking wealthy individuals to provide aid (through monetary means), this goal could be achieved almost instantaneously.

Although my theory sounds quite similar to Arthur's, I’d note that a significant difference between my and Arthur’s code, would be the fact that I’m not aiming for comfort. My moral code allows for there to be certain levels of discomfort, as I argue that only the “fortunate” should monetarily prevent the bad.

In conclusion, neither Singer’s nor Arthur’s moral codes are totally practical, but by creating a moderate moral code we can eradicate world hunger, while still maintaining a level of comfort amongst the individuals who donate. We cannot force everyone to monetarily prevent bad happenings as some people are less fortunate than others. With that being said, we cannot afford to let the fortunate monetarily prevent bad at their own comfort, as this moral code is implemented in today’s society and has utterly failed. We must adapt to overcome world hunger, as, Singer says, hunger is one of, if not the worst way to suffer. So, we must create a befitting code, that not only is practical but also solves the problem of world hunger. Therefore, I’d rather advocate for an alternate, net worth-based system that only allows for relatively wealthy people to monetarily prevent bad.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

This was written as the final essay for the Introduction to Philosophy class at the University of Pittsburg