FREE ESSAY ON HUNGER AND POVERTY

HUNGER AND POVERTY

Hunger and Poverty
During the course of this particular essay, I will prove to you many points. Maybe not to
the extreme that it will change one's thought processes on the subject of hunger and
world poverty, but enough to form a distinction between moral obligation and moral
capacity. What I will not mention is the fact that Peter Singer's outdated material
(1971), though thorough in the sense of supporting his view on hunger and world poverty
as well as examining this school of thought, is unconvincing to say the least. As our
recent past has shown us, using Somalia and Rwanda as models, no amount of money or time
on earth can come between a civil war. Terrible things happen, innocent people are slain
in the names of either freedom or captivity, and land is destroyed, burned by the flames
of either righteousness or wrath. But placing the burden of attempting to heal these
wounds on the "well off" is not only immoral in itself, it is crazy.
To consider an act a moral obligation, it must have an end that fits within the realm of
reason. If someone is obligated to do something, then the purpose of that action holds
meaning, therefore making the act a meaningful act. A characteristic of a meaningful act
is a justifiably important end, that is, an end that which holds a higher purpose than
the action against the obligated act. One can argue, using history as an example, that
ending world poverty and hunger is not a reasonable goal. 
Singer uses the term "morally significant" throughout his essay, citing that we our
morally obligated to help others in need to the point that what we have is morally
significant to our well being. He does not attempt to provide if, ands, or exceptions to
this rule, which I find, at the least, "morally unconstitutional." Granted this is only a
school of thought, that type of thought is considerably dangerous in the sense that it
eliminates the right of individual happiness. This thought, which Singer attributes to
the fact that we are all part of the "global community," provides little reasoning to
make a person honestly consider the act of help. Who is to say what is considered to be
of comparable moral significance? Does Singer honestly believe that the typical American
citizen, after reading one of his manifestos, will turn down the 57" projection
television and opt for the 13" one, and then send the money they saved to the African War
Baby Relief Fund? Hell no. For all we know, Singer may argue that a television is not a
comparably moral significant item. And in today's society and culture, that is not a
reasonable end. Singer uses St. Thomas Aquinas (12th century Italian theologian and
philosopher) as a reference to his philosophical view, and although Aquinas was one of
the foremost experts on religion and humanism, he is not living in the 21st century.
Singer's views border a utopian society, and although they sound good, they prove
impossible.
John Arthur, who's essay "Rights and the Duty to Bring Aid," looks to disprove Singer's
theory and, at the least, provide an alternative that would satisfy the demands of the
time. This is where the line between moral obligation and moral capacity is drawn. Now,
the case of the drowning child, while seemingly obvious, is very far from it (according
to both Singer and Arthur). Saving the child, without risk of personal injury, is the
moral thing to do. Arthur even goes as far as to add that it is morally acceptable to use
a boat that is not yours to aid in the rescue. He contends that duties to bring aid can
override duties not to violate rights. I contend that this is acceptable, but only if an
immediate end is the result. The saving of the drowning child, after all precaution are
taken, is well within a capacity. This is something that is accomplishable immediately,
and if not immediately, within a reasonable time frame. Capacity. Capability. All things
that people, regardless of economic status, can do. But as the case may be, there are
economic differences and some people have the power to do more than others do. It is
called sacrifice. It does not require the end of owning material goods for one's own
pleasure, just simply limitations done voluntarily to ensure the well being of the human
race. If people choose not to participate, so be it. Are we supposed to get angry with
them? What would that accomplish? Limiting the consumption of meat products, while still
a radical idea, is an idea nonetheless. Labeling such duties as moral obligations does
not help the hungry and the poor, it just creates more.