Utilitarianism and Global Justice

What is just distribution of wealth? Utilitarianism: what is morally right is what maximizes overall happiness (pleasure) for everyone Answer: the distribution that maximizes happiness (pleasure) for everyone 2 Version of Utilitarianism: We have obligations to others and so a just distribution is one that is egalitarian Hardin argues that we have obligations not to give to others (more libertarian)

Ethical Egoism An action is right just in case it advances one’s own best interest. An action is wrong just in case it doesn’t advances one’s own best interest. Counter-intuitive: morality seems to be about helping others, sometimes when it is not in our interest

Peter Singer, Contemporary Utilitarian. Work on many applied ethics areas Professor of Applied Ethics in Princeton University and at University of Melbourne, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics. Source: 1-2 Millenium Project (United Nations), 3 (Unicef), 4-5 World Bank

Facts about Global Justice Every year six million children die from malnutrition before their fifth birthday More than 800 million (2.5 X the population of the US) people go to bed hungry every day...300 million are children Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day (purchasing power) At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day (purchasing power)

Where the Money Goes Global Priority $U.S.(Bln) Cosmetics in the United States 8 Ice cream in Europe 11 Perfumes in Europe and the United States 12 Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17 Business entertainment in Japan 35 Cigarettes in Europe 50 Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105 Narcotics drugs in the world 400 Military spending in the world 780 Global Priority $U.S. Billions Basic education for all 6 Water and sanitation for all 9 Reproductive health for all women 12 Basic health and nutrition 13 Source: United Nations Human Development Report 1998

Main Argument [CMI] If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance then we morally ought to do it Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad It is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance Therefore, we ought to prevent suffering and death

Comparable Moral Importance Is CMI Plausible? Consider an application: If Jimmy is walking past a shallow pond, and I see a child drowning, I ought to wade in and rescue the child. Cost: Muddy Clothing Benefit: Saving someone’s life [CMI] If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of moral importance, we ought to do it

What is Relevant? Is distance relevant? Singer: No. Is our affiliation with the person relevant? Some people say Yes – we have a special affiliation with our neighbors, countrymen and no one else (including those starving across the world) Singer: No. It violates basic equality principles (here Singer’s utilitarianism is seen – recall, utilitarians think that x is morally right just in case it increases happiness for everyone involved.)

How much should we give? Strong CMI: we should prevent bad things from happening unless in doing so we would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance As long as others have more things that provide for their happiness we ought to give to make them more happy Moderate CMI: we should prevent very bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant We ought not consume trivial matter (cosmetics, rims for cars, expensive wines, etc) but give to famine relief

Is lack of involvement of others morally significant? The fact that there are millions of other people who can help does not make the situation different in any morally significant respect from the situation in which I am the only one who can help. There is a Psychological Difference: We don’t feel guilty because no one around us does; most don’t spend significant amount of their income on charity

Why Should I Give When Others Don’t? Singer: we should not be mislead by the following argument: If everyone gave $5, $5 would suffice So each person should give $5 There's no reason why I should give more than others should. So, I have no obligation to give any more than $5. Problem (Singer): we do not make our decision in a context in which others will give their $5. The argument is hypothetical (if everyone gave $5, …) and since we know most people won’t give, the right course of action is to give as much as it is needed assuming that most wont give

Objections Objection 1: It is too drastic a revision of our moral scheme. We cannot draw the distinction between duty and charity where it has traditionally been drawn. We're considered generous when we give, but if we accept this principle charity is a Duty. Reply: The argument stands on the principle, not on common beliefs. We can explain why people judge differently, but this is not a justification Also, who is the better person – the person who gives or the person who doesn’t?

Objection 2: Real problem = over-population Life boat analogy: economic resources of a society are limited; they cannot support an indefinitely large population. Like being on a lifeboat with several extra spots, and many more people to rescue Poor countries are greatly overpopulated (already exhausting their resources) If we give to charity – mostly taking about food aid, etc – we are contributing to population growth Consequences of this? Increase in population, more suffering, and if the scheme continues, the life boat sinks by taking on too many people

Take everyone on board = Marxism – from each ability to each according to his need Pop increase in US – double every 87 years Pop increase in (Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Morocco, Thailand, Pakistan) doubles every 21 years Take on only 10 (safety margin) = donating surplus wealth to needy Result: gets rid of safety factor, for which we will pay for sooner or later Take on no one Result: ensure safety of those on board

Fundamental Error of Share Ethics Ruin in the commons individual owners recognize their responsibility to care for their property else they suffer Commons - the considerate herdsman who refrains from overloading the commons suffers more than a selfish one who says his needs are greater; It only takes a few to ruin the commons (to demand what they do not need, and claim no responsibility for it) Example Fisheries – common – everyone can take their share Works fine with voluntary restraint Hardin thinks this is doomed to fail – some will take their greater share, since there is no individual property ownership, killing off fish populations

Hardin’s focus on food aid (extends to medical aid, vaccination, etc) Giving aid during emergencies results in population increase, which in the end creates more needs until the next emergency. The cycle continues indefinitely contributing to overall suffering One should not give to charity for the starving Not clear what Hardin would say about the ‘pool case’ – Does he think that letting the child drown is permitted?

Reply (Singer): The best way to reduce fertility is to improve people’s lives. Also, if one thinks that overpopulation is the problem, then one should spend all of their money to programs that regulate population – if that would produce the most benefit overall.

References Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, The developing world is poorer than we thought, but no less successful in the fight against poverty, World Bank, August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/3KL75ZFJ60 United Nations Human Development Report 2007/2008, United Nations, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/ The state of human development, United Nations Human Development Report 1998, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1998/