1. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Garrett Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics” – The lifeboat metaphor: Rich nations are lifeboats full of rich people and poor nations are (much more crowded) lifeboats full of poor people. The central problem of “the ethics of a lifeboat”: What should the passengers on a rich lifeboat do? Three options: – Unlimited sharing – Selective sharing – No sharing Hardin argues for the third option.

2. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Garrett Hardin, “Lifeboat Ethics” – Real-world issues Reproduction rates of US compared to poor countries Fundamental error of “sharing ethics” The world food bank proposal The “ratchet effect” – How plausible is the lifeboat metaphor? – Does it convincingly show that the activity of world food banks will lead to catastrophe?

3. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Peter Singer, “The Life You Can Save” – Singer's famous thought experiment: On your way to work you pass a small pond and see a young child who seems likely to drown if you don't wade in and pull him out. If you pull him out, though, you will ruin your new shoes, dirty your suit, and be late for work. What should you do? The common intuition: You should try to save the child. If you don't, you will have done something wrong. This suggests that we ought to donate relatively small amounts of money to save those who are dying from starvation, easily treatable diseases, etc.

4. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Peter Singer, “The Life You Can Save” – A philosophical argument: 1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. 2. If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. 3. By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care, without sacrificing anything nearly as important. --------------------------------------------------------------- So: 4. If you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong.

5. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Peter Singer, “The Life You Can Save” – Objections Singer discusses We're all entitled to our beliefs We have a right to our hard-earned money Libertarianism Americans already give enough Philanthropic responses undermine political change Giving food/money breeds dependency Giving away cash will reduce future growth Giving may destroy the economy We have special relationships with our families, communities, and countries

6. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation” – Singer's “greatest moral evil rule” = “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” – Rights: Natural (moral) versus conventional (legal & institutional) Negative rights of non-interference Positive rights of recipience

7. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation” Duties to aid others and the rights of those others Rights as one factor (but not the only factor) to be considered in determining one’s moral obligations Conclusion: “[O]ur code expects us to help people in need as well as to respect negative and positive rights. But we are also entitled to invoke our own rights as a justification for not giving to distant strangers when the cost to us is substantial...”

8. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation” – Why give so much weight to entitlements? 1. Fairness, justice, and respect are more fundamental than rights and desert, and these three values justify entitlements. 2. A moral code it is rational to accept must be practical – 1. Allows for altruism and some self-interest – 2. Puts limits on objectivity – 3. Should recognize limits on knowledge

9. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Amartya Sen, “Property and Hunger” – Three views of rights: The instrumental view: rights don't matter on their own; only their consequences matter The constraint view: rights matter on their own; consequences do not matter The goal view: rights matter on their own; their consequences matter as well – Two conclusions to draw: We must distinguish between the intrinsic value of a right and the overall value of a right. No moral assessment of a right can be independent of its likely consequences.

10. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Amartya Sen, “Property and Hunger” – Property, deprivation, and entitlements An explanation of starvation/hunger: the elements – Endowments – Exchange entitlements – Starvation as a result of lack of endowments/entitlements to food – Lack of availability of food is only one factor What this explanation suggests about public policies of prevention: – We should increase the entitlements of deprived groups by: (i) increasing food production, (ii) adjusting how food is distributed, and (iii) reducing entitlements of more prosperous groups.

11. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Onora O'Neill, “A Kantian Approach to World Hunger” – Kant's Humanity formulation of the categorical imperative: (i) do not treat others as mere means and (ii) do treat others as ends in themselves – (i) Gives us requirements of justice We cannot coerce people. – (ii) Gives us requirements of beneficence We must respect people as rational and autonomous beings.

12. Chapter 13: World Hunger and Poverty Onora O'Neill, “A Kantian Approach to World Hunger” – Kantian moral reasoning Does not rank all possible institutional arrangements Less sensitive to issues concerning what will cause what – Utilitarian moral reasoning Requires ranking all possible courses of actions Thus, requires much more causal knowledge than Kantian moral reasoning Unlike Kantian reasoning, may allow or even require short-term neglect or abandonment