When it comes to the domain of economics, the issue of global poverty has seen scholars lock horns over its possible solutions. Of the varying range of solutions proposed, the most debated one, perhaps, is that of the effectiveness of financial aid and the contribution of affluent individuals in well off countries to the same.
Whilst a number of arguments for and against the involvement of individuals in alleviating poverty stem from economics, the question of the driving force behind the act of donating, the “moral obligation”, is firmly rooted in the discipline of philosophy.
Several celebrated thinkers of our times have given their two cents on the topic, and they can be broadly divided into two categories: those in favour of individual contribution to international aid, and those against it. To get a sneak peek into both schools of thought, allow me to present to you the insights of Peter Singers and Garrett Hardin, two philosophers situated on the opposite ends of the spectrum.
Australian philosopher Peter Singers, in his work “Famine, Morality and Affluence” (Singer, 1972), talks about the ethics of contributing to humanitarian efforts by the affluent members of the society. He presents the following scenario to drive his point home:
Imagine that you are walking down the street and notice a child drowning in a lake. You can swim and are close enough to save her if you act immediately. However, doing so ruins your expensive shoes. Do you still have an obligation to save the child?
Given the strong social moral conditioning we go through since childhood, almost all of us would agree that we do have an obligation to save the child. Having said that, here comes the next question:
If you are obligated to save the life of a child in need, is there a fundamental difference between saving a child in front of you and one on the other side of the world?
Here is the tricky part. How does saving the life of a child in front of you compare to that of an unknown child suffering from poverty in some other part of the world? Is it the same? Is it different? If so, then how?
Peter Singers subscribes staunchly to utilitarianism, the belief that in any given circumstance, you are morally obligated to do that thing which ensures the greater good of the most number of people. The crux of his argument in favour of international aid is that if one can prevent someone from dying due to famine, disasters or poverty, without any significance decrease in one’s own well being and that of others, then it would be morally wrong for a person to not to do it. Also, one should keep donating to charity until doing more will make others or one’s self worse off. Through the thought experiment, Singer also emphasizes on the fact that there is no fundamental difference between helping your next door neighbour and an unfamiliar person suffering thousands of miles away.
On the opposite end, is the American philosopher Garret Hardin’s Lifeboat Problem, in which he essentially argues against international aid efforts. The premise is set as following:
There are 50 people on a boat with a capacity of 10 and there are a number of people drowning around them. What should they do? Do they try to get everyone on board and sink in the process or try to ensure the safety and security of the 90 people on board in the most efficient way?
Hardin argues that if all lives are equally as important, how do you choose whom to get on board? And if you choose to get everyone on board, everyone will end up dying. The best way out, he says, is to not help any of the drowning people as they are already doomed and use the extra capacity to ensure the survival of people aboard.
So on a scale of “all lives matter” to “ensure your survival first”, where do we put alleviation of poverty and the moral obligation of affluent countries and individuals to contribute to the efforts?
Most of us may reject Hardin’s analogy out right. When we replace individuals in the Lifeboat Problem with countries, we see that the scenario changes completely. The affluent countries are on the boat owing to systemic oppression and historic plundering of resources inflicted by them on the countries that are now considered worse off. Having been subjected to years of colonial rule and oppression by the richer countries, who even now wield power over the economic autonomy of other countries in the garb of globalisation, the poverty struck nations in fact, are rightful recipients of reparations from the affluent nations.
However, the argument presented by Singers is harder to reject. It appeals to our sense of being a moral agent of the society. While some can say that we are not obligated to help anyone through our hard earned money because others aren’t doing so, it is also true that only we are in control of our actions and what we do or not do is completely our choice. The question that pops up again is, how far is an individual morally obligated to help someone they might never even meet in person or know the name of?
While there is no consensus on the conclusion on whose ideas are better than the others, here are some points that the majority of us can agree upon. Poverty alleviation is a vast project and cannot fall on the shoulders of individuals. Whilst they should donate to charities and international aid, it can never be a substitute for the dire structural changes required for effective intervention. For starters, the World Bank and other multilateral institutions should cease to act as the mouth pieces of the capitalists. Within the poorer countries as well, governance and policy reforms are required. Multinational corporate giants should stop harking on local resources. The list is endless and it can scarcely be achieved by individual efforts only. Individuals can contribute by urging their elected representatives to come up with better aid policies, however, the onus of carrying out the whole process should lie on the shoulders of the State.
So, maybe instead of reminding individuals of their moral obligation, we can start holding our governments accountable?
