Aid to the Poor
Famine, Affluence, and Morality – Peter Singer
1. Notice the figures Singer gives here. Be careful if you attack Singer that you do not rely on false economic claims.
2. Singer makes two basic assumptions. What are they? Are they as uncontroversial as he claims them to be? What follows from acceptance of these two assumptions?
3. Often one hears arguments that ‘Charity begins at home’. What is Singer’s reply?
4. Alternately, a person can argue that since they are but one person, they can’t possibly help. What is his response to this? How about if a person says, “If we all put in $10, world poverty would disappear so I’m only obligated to give $10”.
5. Why does Singer think it is wrong to call aid to the poor, “charity”?
6. In the later half of the article, Singer addresses possible attacks on his view. What is his response to the following: that it is the role of the government to aid the poor and not of individual citizens, that giving to the poor will just cause overpopulation and in the end, starvation and misery, and that his scheme will reduce us all to beggars ourselves.
7. Singer proposes two versions of his scheme – the strong version and the moderate version. What are they, what is different about them, and what do they imply about how much aid we should give?
Feeding the Hungry – Jan Narveson
1. What is Narveson’s view of starvation? How does his characterization of the problem differ from Singer’s?
2. Notice that Narveson introduces two levels of moral obligation to the issue: there is the question of justice but also that of charity. It might be that we are not unjust to ignore the poor but uncharitable. The two are separable claims.
3. Narveson argues that we should adopt a ‘liberty’ principle that says that we can do what we want, as long as we are not directly responsible for harming others. What argument does he give for this point of view? How does he think this affects our obligations to help the poor?
4. In a blatant violation of the Principle of Charity, Narveson sums up the utilitarian view as ‘the ethics of the hairshirt’ and as a principle of ‘slavery’. Reconstruct his argument so that it is fair and acceptable. Does it still work against utilitarians? What would Singer’s response be?
5. What is Narveson’s’ view on helping others? When should we do it? When should we be excused?
6. Narveson brings up an interesting claim when he says, “[P]eople do not “count equally” for most of us. Normal people care about some people than others, and build their very lives around these carings”. Would a utilitarian agree? If not, what argument could he or she use to attack Narveson? If they would agree, how can they reconcile this with their commitment to treating everyone as a moral equal?
7. What is Narveson’s view on charity? Are they reasonable or has he misunderstood the concept?
8. Narveson ends with some reasons why aid to the poor is not as necessary as is usually thought and some reasons why aid may not work. What would Singer’s response be here? Who makes the better case? Why?
Comment Question
1. Narveson says that we should not feel guilty about spending money on a ‘memorable birthday party’ for our child – even if we know that doing so will mean people will starve because the money was not spent to save them. Compare this to Singer’s example of the drowning child. If you think Narveson is right, what do you say about someone who ignores the child? How are they different form the birthday case? If Singer is right, does this mean that we cannot spend money on our own friends and family?