G9 world hunger

G9 world hunger

• 1.
  “Rich and Poor”Peter Singer Utilitarian Argument Singer argues that we are morally required to give all we can up to the point at which it interferes with our own subsistence/necessities.
• 2.
  Non-issues in definingour obligation to help Our proximity to those in need is irrelevant as far as our obligation is concerned. The ability of others to pay/help others is irrelevant as far as our obligation is concerned. Good that $200 can bring to us vs. saving a human life.
• 3.
  -Objections to givingso much to others If every citizen in affluent nations contributed, then I wouldn’t have to give more than my fair share. Response: But you can save a life in this real world and not in some ideal world. Government aid is sufficient Response: U.S. aid is far below all other nations in foreign aid .09% of GDP/Your share will still save a life immediately.
• 4.
  “ Perspectives onWorld Hunger and the Extent of Our Positive Duties”: Robert Van Wyk Estimates of the number of malnourished people: 70 Million 460 Million 1 Billion Question: What duties do individuals have to help?
• 5.
  Consequentialist approaches failto give an adequate answer to the question posed. Singer: far to demanding of a moral duty (superogatory) Hardin: contends that we never have to send food to those who cannot support themselves (morally wanting)
• 6.
  Negative Rights vs.Positive Rights Problem of world hunger from a negative rights perspective: Individuals/Gov’t/Corp.  Actions/policies affect the situation of others  Therefore: We have an obligation to help those we have harmed by our actions.
• 7.
  Positive vs. NegativeRights (cont.) Duties wealthy countries have to poor countries: Compensation for past injustices – even if the current generation of individuals did not perpetrate the harm. Not to harm “ It is the vulnerability of people to others (individually or collectively) that is the foundation of most (or all) of both our positive and negative duties to others.”(345)
• 8.
  Seeking the meanbetween extremes Van Wyk is seeking a middle ground between Nozick and Singer. Estimate of what is needed for a minimally decent life: Feeding the hungry Political and economic change Limits on population growth Nations would all determine this need, and tax individuals accordingly
• 9.
  Individual obligation inthe absence of a fair share scheme: According to Van Wyk, there is a strict duty or obligation for an individual to give at least his or her fair share according to some plausible formula. Not a case where an individual’s action can have a benefit only is everyone else also does the same action.
• 10.
  Our strict dutyis to only do our fair share Requirement to do more than our fair share may interfere with other things we may choose to do with our life. This duty avoids the problem of overload. Duty in this case is agent specific. An additional duty: to put pressure on the prevailing attitudes surrounding fair shares.
• 11.
  Considerations regarding fairshares Should not be beneficent to the point of need the beneficence of others. Should not give in a manner that makes those we are giving to less self-reliant and self-determining. Should be careful to avoid “any appearance of intending to obligate the other person”.
• 12.
  Some conditions underwhich aid may be withheld by a wealthy nation Agriculture Population growth Political reforms necessary to make the poor country independent.