World hunger

Do we have a duty to help those in need?

Eating is not just about survival and health. Most people enjoy a nice meal, and some are willing to spend a lot of money on food and drinks. Yet lots of people across the world suffer from starvation and malnutrition. This video shows some children in Haiti eating biscuits made out of dirt:

Do we have any moral duty to help people who do not have enough to eat? Is it wrong to indulge in good food while others are suffering?

What would you do?

Consider this thought experiment from the philosopher Peter Singer. Imagine walking by a pond and there is a child who has fallen in and is drowning. Would you rescue the child? Suppose this is not dangerous for you, but your clothes might become dirty and have to be thrown away afterwards.

Most people would agree that they ought to save the child. Peter Singer argues that we do have a duty to assist. He thinks that as a matter of general principle, if we can stop a very bad thing from happening, and we do not have to make a huge sacrifice, then it is wrong not to do it.

Note that the proposal is not that we have to sacrifice our lives in order to help others. Only that we have to help when it is easy for us, and we are preventing a very bad outcome.

Singer thinks that in fact it is easy for us to prevent terrible things from happening in everyday life, simply by donating money to charity and aid organizations. So if we have a duty to save the drowning child in the pond, we have a duty to donate money as well.

Responses

Here are some common responses:

• Distance: In the drowning child example, the child in need of help is right next to us, but when we donate money, the beneficiaries are far away. Charity begins at home. We have no duty to help those who are far away.
• Effectiveness: Saving the drowning child is easy and straightforward. But donations might not be effective. Governments and charities are often corrupt or inefficient.
• Priority: People in many poor countries suffer because of bad governance, lack of infrastructure, and other reasons. Donating money is not going to solve these problems.
• Other people: In the drowning child example, I am the only person who can save the child. But in real life, there are lots of rich people who are in a begtter position to help. So I have no special duty to help.

Do these responses show that we have no duty to donate money?

• Distance: Distance affects our emotions. It is easier to show empathy when we can see the people who suffer. So we feel more strongly that we should do something. But does distance really matter? Surely what matters is whether we are able to save the life in question. If we can easily prevent a bad thing from happening, why does it matter whether it happens nearby or far away?
• Effectiveness: It is true that donations might not be 100% effective. But even in the case of the drowning child, there is also no guarantee that the child can be saved. We might already be too late, but this possibility is not an excuse to do nothing. Also, although some charities are not reliable, there are plenty with proven track records. Websites such as http://www.givewell.org provide useful information about which charities are transparent & efficient.
• Priority: Economic development might be more important than aid in the long run, but this does not imply that private donation is useless or counterproductive.
• Other people: What if there are other people in the drowning child example? If they refuse to help, does it mean it is OK for us to do nothing?

Autonomy and financial security

Many people are reluctant to donate money because they are worried about their financial security. But is this a good reason not to do more?

Doing the right thing sometimes requires great sacrifice. But we should also avoid making excuses. Most of us are lucky enough to be able to give a little bit more without undermining our lives.

Let us be honest. Is it true that all our expenses are essential for our future? Would our life be ruined if we eat out less often, or spend less money on coffee and drinks? Sometimes people go on a shopping spree and end up buying unnecessary things. Think of the lives we can save if we cut down on unnecessary expenditure.

Most of us are not at a breaking point where we have to choose between helping people or destroying our future. It is not a big sacrifice to give up some trivial pleasures to save a life. It might actually make us happier, knowing that we have made the world a better place.

What next?

Many people don’t reflect about morality. But thinking more can help us live a more meaningful and consistent life. If Peter Singer is right, all of us can, and should, do more to help others.