MORAL OBLIGATIONS TO HELP RELIEVE WORLD POVERTY AND HUNGER Moral Conversation Project: Critically evaluate Noonan and Marquis’s arguments for the proposition that abortion is immoral. I. Does distance have moral relevance? II. The parameters of world poverty and hunger A. 1976: 400 million in “absolute poverty” (World Bank) B. 1980: 340 million had insufficient nutrition for normal growth 730 million had insufficient nutrition for active working life (both statistics from World Bank) (quoted in Sen and Dreze, HUNGER AND PUBLIC ACTION www.reliefnet.org/doc/hpa/hpa0.html) C. Currently, although certain areas are appreciably better, notably East Asia, overall the absolute numbers aren’t much changed D. From Peter Unger, LIVING HIGH AND LETTING DIE www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/unger/lhld/ch apter1.html#s1 As I write these words in 1995, it's true that, in each of the past 30 years, well over 10 million children died from readily preventable causes. And, except for a lack of money aimed at doing the job, most of the deaths could have been prevented by using any one of many means. Before discussing a few main means, it's useful to say something about the regions where the easily preventable childhood deaths have been occurring. First, there's this well-known fact: Over ninety percent of these deaths occur in the countries of the so-called "Third World." By contrast, here's something much less widely known: Though almost all these needless deaths occur in the materially poorest parts of the world, poverty itself is hardly the whole story. For a good case in point, take the poverty-ridden Indian state of Kerala. While per capita income in this state of about thirty million is notably lower than in India as a whole, life expectancy in Kerala is higher than in any other Indian state. And, the childhood mortality rate is much lower than in India as a whole.2 Why? Without telling a long historical story, most of the answer may be put like this: In this vibrantly democratic and responsive state, Kerala's millions have food security, safe drinking water and very basic health care. By contrast, many of the richer Indians don't have their basic needs met, and don't have their children's needs met. So, while often a factor, poverty itself hardly explains why millions of kids needlessly die each year. In one direction, I'll amplify that remark.3 As is well known, many millions of children don't get enough to eat. These related truths are less well known: First, for each child that dies in a famine, several die from chronic malnutrition. Second, even if she gets over eighty percent of the calories needed by a youngster of her age for excellent health, a child who regularly gets less than ninety percent is so malnourished that she'll have a dangerously inadequate immune system. Third, what happens to many such vulnerable children is that, because she's among the many millions who haven't been vaccinated against measles, when she gets measles she dies from it. So, fourth, each year mere measles still kills about a million Third World kids.4 Several means of reducing measles deaths are worth mentioning, including these: Semiannually, an underfed child can be given a powerful dose of Vitamin A, with capsules costing less than 10 cents. For that year, this will improve the child's immune system. So, if she hasn't been vaccinated, during this year she'll be better able to survive measles. What's more, from her two capsules, she'll get a big bonus: With her immune system improved, this year she'll have a better chance of beating the two diseases that take far more young lives than measles claims, pneumonia and diarrhea. Though usually all that's needed to save a child from it is the administration of antibiotics that cost about 25 cents, pneumonia now claims about 3.5 million young lives a year, making it the leading child- killing disease. And, in the text's first paragraph, I've related the score for diarrhea. But, let's again focus on measles. Having already said plenty about Vitamin A, I'll note that, for about $17 a head, UNICEF can vaccinate children against measles. On the positive side, the protection secured lasts a life-time; with no need for semiannual renewal, there's no danger of failing to renew protection! What's more, at the same time each child can be vaccinated for life-time protection against five other diseases that, taken together, each year kill about another million Third World kids: tuberculosis, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus and polio. Perhaps best of all, these vaccinations will be part of a world-wide immunization campaign that, over the years, is making progress toward eliminating these vaccine-preventable diseases, much as smallpox was eliminated only a decade or two ago. Indeed, with no incidence in the whole Western Hemisphere since 1991, polio is quite close to being eliminated; with good logistical systems in place almost everywhere, the campaign's success depends mainly on funding.5 Finally, the vast majority of the world's very vulnerable children live in lands with UNICEF programs operating productively, including all 13 developing countries lately (1992) ranked among the world's 20 most populous nations: China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Mexico, Vietnam, Philippines, Iran, Turkey and Thailand.6 By now, we've seen the main point: Through the likes of UNICEF, it's well within your power, in the coming months and years, to lessen serious suffering. For even modestly well-informed readers, what I've just related doesn't come as a big surprise. All they'll have learned are some particulars pertaining to what they've learned long ago: By directing donations toward the worthy end, well-off folks can be very effective in lessening serious suffering and loss. Indeed, so well accustomed are they to this thought that, when reading the presented particulars, the worldly individuals won't make any notable response. For far fewer readers, what I've related will be something completely new. From many of them, my remarks will evoke a very notable response, even if a fairly fleeting one, about how we ought to behave: The thought occurs that each of us ought to contribute (what's for her) quite a lot to lessen early deaths; indeed, it's seriously wrong not to do that. But, soon after making such a strict response, the newly aware also become well accustomed to the thought about our power. And, then, they also make the much more lenient response that almost everyone almost always makes: While it's good for us to provide vital aid, it's not even the least bit wrong to do nothing to help save distant people from painfully dying soon. (The prevalence of the lenient response is apparent from so much passive behavior: Even when unusually good folks are vividly approached to help save distant young lives, it's very few who contribute anything.7) Which of these two opposite responses gives the more accurate indication of what morality requires? Is it really seriously wrong not to do anything to lessen distant suffering; or, is it quite all right to do nothing? In this book, I'll argue that the first of these thoughts is correct and that, far from being just barely false, the second conflicts strongly with the truth about morality. III Singer’s Argument 1. If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it. 2. Absolute poverty is bad. 3. There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable significance. 4. We ought to prevent some absolute poverty. IV Is this argument sound? If it is sound, is this the strongest conclusion it can prove? V Other approaches A. Rawls’s justice as fairness. (Behind the veil, you don’t know the circumstances of your society. How to handle questions of justice at this level?) B. Libertarianism C. Utilitarianism