lawrence m. hinman, ph.d. professor of philosophy university of san diego 5/23/2015(c) lawrence m....

Lawrence M. Hinman, Ph.D.Professor of PhilosophyUniversity of San Diego

04/18/23 (c) Lawrence M. Hinman 1

World Hunger & World Hunger & Moral ObligationMoral ObligationWorld Hunger & World Hunger &

Moral ObligationMoral Obligation


Overview

1. Are People the Problem?

2. The Case for Helping Other Countries

3. The Case Against Helping Other Countries

4. Conclusion


1. Are People the Problem?

The Bet–In 1980, two secular prophets

made a $1,000 bet about the future of the planet.


Paul Ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb (1968) and How to be a Survivor, bet that the world would get worse and worse.

This is an example of the apocalyptic attitude one sometimes encounters in discussions of world hunger and the environment.


Julian Simon

Julian Simon, Professor of Business Administration at the University of Maryland and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, bet that the world would get better and better.


The Terms of the Bet

Ehrlich picked the indicators: the change in the price of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten I real, uninflated dollars over a 10 year period.– If prices went up, Simon would pay

Ehrlich– If prices went down, Ehrlich would pay

Simon


The Outcome

Ehrlich lost.– The price of all five metals went down, even in

real dollars Ehrlich has not made a bet since then. The interesting question that this raises is

whether fewer people is the answer to the problem of world hunger. Simon maintains that people are the real source of wealth in the world, and that we need more—not fewer—people if the world is to get better and better.


Population Trends, 1950-2050

Source:http://www.chem.brown.edu/chem12/un%20population/unPopulation.html


Population Trends


Changing Fertility Rates


Total Fertility Rate 2004Over 2.1 (replacement rate)

1 Somalia 6.84 2 Afghanistan 6.75 3 Niger 6.75 4 Uganda 6.74 5 Yemen 6.67 6 Congo, 6.62 25 Rwanda 5.49 36 Sudan 4.85 49 Iraq 4.28 52 Pakistan 4.14 113 Greenland 2.41 Source: CIA: The World Factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html


Total Fertility Rate 20041.6 – 2.1

135 Chile 2.02 143 Brazil 1.93 153 Thailand 1.88 154 Ireland 1.87 162 New Zealand 1.79 165 Norway 1.78 167 Australia 1.76 172 Denmark 1.74 173 Finland 1.73 179 Cuba 1.66 180 Sweden 1.66 181 United Kingdom 1.66 182 Netherlands 1.66 187 Canada 1.61


Total Fertility

Rate 2004Below 1.6

194 European Union 1.48 195 Portugal 1.47 196 Switzerland 1.43 202 Japan 1.39 203 Poland 1.39 204 Germany 1.39 208 Austria 1.36 209 Greece 1.33 215 Italy 1.28 216 Spain 1.28 218 Russia 1.27 220 Korea, South 1.26 223 Lithuania 1.19 224 Singapore 1.05 226 Hong Kong 0.91


Changing Mortality Rates

Although fertility rates are declining, mortality rates are also important and they are creating a counter-pressure in terms of population decrease.– Overall, people are living longer– Far fewer people die in early childhood (5 years old or

younger) The overall effect is that, although fewer people

are being born, they stay around on the earth for a longer time!

Another important factor is the impact of HIV-AIDS, especially in Africa.


HIV/AIDSrates

1 Swaziland 38.80 2003 est. 2 Botswana 37.30 2003 est. 3 Lesotho 28.90 2003 est. 4 Zimbabwe 24.60 2001 est. 5 South Africa 21.50 2003 est. 6 Namibia 21.30 2003 est. 7 Zambia 16.50 2003 est. 57 Russia 1.10 2001 est. 59 India 0.90 2001 est.63 Venezuela 0.70 2001 est. 64 Spain 0.70 2001 est. 69 United States 0.60 2003 est.85 Mexico 0.30 2003 est. 87 Canada 0.30 2003 est. 108 Australia 0.10 2003 est. 122 Ireland 0.10 2001 est. 168 Svalbard 0.00 2001


The Anaconda Effect

Rapid population changes often look like an anaconda snake that has just eaten a large animal.– Just as we can see the animal moving through

the snake, so we can see the change moving through history.

– The baby boom, for example, moves through history like a bulge, affecting the number of people in a given age distribution.


Age Distribution, 1


Age Distribution, 2


Aging Populations

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch2/page5.htm

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000).


United States Foreign Aid, 1 Net ODA in US Dollars

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp


United States Foreign Aid, 2 Net ODA as percentage of GNP

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

The Income and Wealth Gap

Consider these global figures, provided by The Economist magazine in a 2011 article on “Global Leaders.” The richest one percent of the world’s population controls over 40% of the world’s wealth, while the bottom half of the world’s population control only 1% of its wealth. This is a staggering discrepancy between the top and the bottom.


Jan Pen’s Parade

One way of visualizing the discrepancy in wealth and inequality around the world was suggested by the Dutch economist Jan Pen in his book Income Distribution. Imagine a parade in which the people in the parade pass by in a steady stream, taking an hour from the first marcher to the last. Further imagine, Pen suggests, that these people went in order, based on their income, those who make the least at the head of the parade with the biggest earners bring up the rear. Furthermore, and this is the key element, imagine that a person’s height was proportionate to his or her income, with an average height being equivalent to an average income. At first, the marchers wouldn’t even be visible: losing money, their height would unfortunately put them below the surface. They would be followed by midgets, the jobless and the working poor—for half an hour. A total of forty-five minutes would have elapsed before the first person of average height. With six minutes left, the marchers are twelve feet tall, and growing fast. The last four hundred marchers are each over two miles tall.



The Case for HelpingOther Countries

The Argument from Virtue The Issue of Complicity The Group Egoist Argument The Strict Utilitarian Argument The Basic Rights Argument The Kantian Imperfect Duty

Argument


The Argument from Virtue

The Moral Force of Suffering– In the face of deep

suffering, we cannot help but to respond with compassion

The Issue of Luck The Place of the

Children


The Issue of Complicity

We don’t deserve to be born into an affluent society any more than we deserve to be born into an impoverished society

However, we do benefit from the exploitation of poorer societies


The Group Egoist Argument

There may be good, self-centered reasons for aiding other countries

The basic argument– Moral Premise: We ought to do whatever

helps our group’s welfare.– Empirical Premise: Helping some other

countries will benefit the United States– Conclusion: We ought to help some

other countries.


The Strict Utilitarian Argument

Peter Singer has argued that as

utilitarians we ought to seek to reduce the overall amount of

suffering in the world, even at great cost to

those of us who have more affluent life

styles..


The Basic Rights Argument

Henry Shue, in Basic Rights, has argued that

»everyone has a right to minimal subsistence

»this is a positive right, i.e., one that imposes obligations on others to assist in meeting this right


The Kantian Imperfect Duty Argument

Kant distinguishes between:– Perfect duties: require specific actions and

conditions that can be met all the time, such as the duty to tell the truth

– Imperfect duties: require that we perform some among a group of actions

The duty to benevolence is an imperfect duty, requiring us to help some of the poor and starving some of the time.


Killing and Letting Die

Some philosophers, such as Peter Singer, have questioned the moral significance of the distinction between killing and letting die.

– Is it morally wrong to let someone die when we can easily present their death without great risk or harm to ourselves?


The Case against Helping Other Countries

The Lifeboat Argument The Effectiveness Argument The Libertarian Argument The Particularity Argument The Liberal State Argument


The Lifeboat Argument

Garrett Hardin, in “Lifeboat Ethics,” maintains that we have a duty not to help the poor and starving of other countries.

lifeboat.ram


The Lifeboat Metaphor Hardin claims that

rich nations are like lifeboats in a sea with the poor of the world swimming around them.

If the rich nations let the poor ones into the lifeboat, the boat will be swamped and everyone will be lost.

http://www.es.ucsb.edu/faculty/hardin.htm


Evaluating the Metaphor

Presumes rich nations are like boats, poor are like swimmers

Presumes ultimate fate of lifeboat is independent of fate of those in the water

Ignores the question of whether some may have been pushed into the water.


The Effectiveness Argument

Claims that aid just doesn’t work:– Bureaucracies tend to perpetuate

themselves and the problem they administer

– Local economies can be destroyed by aid

– Aid can create unhealthy dependence– Local corruption can prevent aid from

reaching its intended recipients


The Libertarian Argument

Libertarians claim we have only negative rights and only negative duties, I.e., duties of non-interference.

Libertarians see the right to property as being almost as important as the right to life--thus there must be an extremely strong justification for depriving people of their property.


The Particularity Argument

Special Obligation to Take Care of Our Own

The Efficiency Argument Epistemological Considerations


Special Obligation to Take Care of Our Own

Advocates of particularity maintain that we have a special obligation to take care of our own, I.e., our family and loved ones, our town, our nation.

This take precedence over any obligations to help those who are distant from us.


The Efficiency Argument

Some advocates of particularity maintain that, whatever our moral obligations may be, it is simply more efficient for us to take care of our own.

This gives us a “moral division of labor” in which each group is entrusted with caring for the welfare of that group as a whole.


Epistemological Considerations

Advocates of particularity also maintain that local people are best equipped to know what will be best for local people.

Correlatively, we are in the best position to know what is best for those close to us.


The Liberal State Argument

Some advocates of liberalism maintain that the liberal state can only function well--that is, provide its citizens with what they need--if it rests on a solid economic foundation.

Consequently, the state is justified in restricting immigration, etc. to protect the minimal level of economic well-being of the state.


Conclusion

Short term aid Long term aid A Common World

lawrence m. hinman, ph.d. professor of philosophy university of san diego 5/23/2015(c) lawrence m....

Documents

c lawrence

simon slide

canada slide

bet n ehrlich

conclusion conclusion

problem of world hunger

outcome n ehrlich

real dollars n ehrlich