Singer Chapter 8
Rich and Poor

Relative v. Absolute Poverty

• Relative Poverty = compared to "the Joneses"
• a comparative notion
• much U.S. poverty of this sort
• falling short of . . .
• Absolute Poverty = poor by any standard
• McNamara: "a condition of life beneath any reasonable standard of human dignity" characterized by
• illiteracy
• disease
• malnutrition
• high rates of infant mortality
• World Watch: lack of means to meet the most basic biological needs, e.g.
• food
• shelter
• clothing
• Absolute Poverty is probably the principle cause of human misery today (1990)
• 1.2 billion people live in absolute poverty
• 23% of the world's population

• More of a distribution issue than a production problem
• we have the agricultural capacity to feed the hungry
• but be don't: they can't pay for it
• Absolute Affluence: income significantly beyond that required to provide the basic necessities of life for yourself (& family).
• Even people of average means in a rich country like ours are absolutely affluent (on this definition)
• since we've money left over for luxuries: TVs, CDs, etc.

Argument

1. If it's within our power to prevent something bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable importance, we ought to do so.
• say a child is drowning in your presence
• if you can save them without serious danger to yourself you're clearly morally obligated to do so.
2. It's within the power of the absolutely affluent to prevent bad things without themselves having to undergo hardships comparable to those prevented:
• could prevent disease and death among the absolutely poor by supplying them with necessities they lack
• without giving up any necessities -- only luxuries -- ourselves
3. Conclusion: The absolutely affluent have a moral duty to give, in effect, until they themselves are no longer absolutely affluent
• till it hurts them as much as it would help the poor
• i.e., to give up all luxuries to contribute to the alleviation of absolute poverty.

Compromise Proposal

• Reason to think "Take all your riches and give them to the poor" (what 3 above says) is too hard a saying (Matt.20:21-25)
• concession to human frailty & selfishness (Singer)
• if you say people are immoral for doing less than 3 above says
• they won't end up doing all that 3 says
• they'll give up completely & do nothing instead
• violation of special duties?
• Conventionally accepted standard "a few coins in the collection tin when it is waved under your nose" plainly insufficient
• Compromise: moral obligation to tithe
• obligation on the absolutely affluent to give 10% of their annual income
• for purposes of alleviating absolute poverty
• "By any reasonable ethical standards this is the minimum we ought to do, and we do wrong if we do less." (246)