How do we measure poverty?

What causes poverty?

How can we alleviate poverty?

What are our obligations with respect to poverty?

Absolute poverty

"a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services."

– United Nations (1995)

It is possible for a very unequal society to contain nobody in absolute poverty.

Rawls' Difference Principle

Inequality is justified if it makes those at the bottom better off than they would be in a more equal society.

East Pakistan seeks independence from Pakistan

Pakistan attempts to suppress uprising by declaring civil war and engaging in genocide.

Pakistan fails and a new country, Bangladesh, is formed.

Bangladesh experiences severe fallout from civil war in the form of poverty and famine.

10 million Bengali refugees flee, creating a humanitarian disaster.

Discusses humanitarian crises, not poverty as such.

What does Singer try to persuade us?

To do certain things to help alleviate famine.

What conclusion does the paper set out to persuade us is true?

Do his arguments transfer to ongoing poverty?

That we ought to give money to help famine.

How does Singer persuade us that this claim is true?

Choose initial premises that everyone is likely to share

Show how they validly lead to the conclusion

Predict and defend against potential objections

Propose concrete action that will alleviate famine

An assumption is an unsupported premise

Assumptions can be explicit or implicit

First assumption: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.

Second assumption: 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.

P2: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it.

P3: There are things that are in our power to do to reduce famine that do not require sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.

P4: We ought, morally, to do those things.

C: The current reaction of affluent countries to famine cannot be justified.

P5: We don't do those things.

(Not conclusion)

"I could even, as far as the application of my argument to the Bengal emergency is concerned, qualify the point so as to make it: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it."

"An application of this principle would be as follows: 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 the child would presumably be a very bad thing."

Provide a compelling example

Weakening the premise makes it harder to object to the argument by presenting fringe cases.

For example:

Should I sacrifice sports clothing that my children need for school so that someone in Bengal can have shoes to fetch water in?

The example that Singer provides is compelling because it emphasises the disparity between the luxuries we enjoy and the suffering in Bengal.

Weakening the premise does not actually weaken the argument insofar as it applies to Bengal.

We need to start somewhere.

The weaker the premises of your argument, the more likely they are to be true...

...and the more likely that your argument is sound.

Someone might respond to Singer by saying that being near the drowning child is what obliges us to help.

Common discussion in the literature.

"If we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us (or we are far away from him)."

Help those nearest to you.

Prioritise those in your community.

Family comes first.

The last two are very common across human communities.

If any of these is compatible with any principle with the above features, Singer will be under pressure.

If we adopt these, do we avoid Singer's conclusion?

The Is/Ought Fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should always be that way.

For example:

I am a naturally aggressive person, therefore I should act aggressively.

Singer deals with several objections that rest on this fallacy.

Bankers have always received bonuses. It's part of the culture.

Just because we in fact prioritise people near us, it does not follow that we ought to.

"If this is an explanation of our common distinction between duty and supererogation, however, it is not a justification of it."

The fact that we won't all do certain things all the time does not affect the claim that we ought to do those things.

The fact that other people act a certain way does not tell me what I ought to do.

The fact that I don't feel guilty does not mean that there is nothing I ought to do.

Certain facts change our obligations, but we cannot derive obligations from facts.

E.g. If someone else is saving the drowning child such that my attempt to do so will make things worse, I am not obliged to help.

P2: In those circumstances, there is no reason why I should give more than others in my situation.

C: I have no obligation to give more than £5.

P2: If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it.

If others aren't pulling their weight, we have to pitch in more.

How much do we have to sacrifice to satisfy Singer?

Is it too much?

How does Singer's argument transfer to systemic poverty?

There are clearly very bad things happening as a result of poverty.

We also indulge in luxuries whose moral significance is negligible.

Should we give the money we spend on luxuries to foreign aid charities?

Consequentialism always relies on knowing the consequences of our actions.

In the context of a global economy, that is a difficult task.