1. Rich and Poor by
Peter Singer

2. Both absolute poverty and absolute affluence exist.
Defined as malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid housing, high infant mortality, low life expectancy.
Characterizes 23% of world’s population.
Absolute affluence.
Ability to meet all basic needs + afford luxuries.
Characterizes the majority (but not all) in advanced industrial countries.

3. There is sufficient production of economic goods in the world that no one has to live in absolute poverty.
This is certainly the case for food.
Sufficient food is produced today to provide every person on earth with a nutritionally adequate diet – and
This is without putting more land into agricultural production or bringing the “green revolution” everywhere.

4. What does Rawls’ theory say?
Apply the second principle.
The current inequality does not leave enough for everyone.
No one could place themselves behind the veil of ignorance and assent to this pattern of distribution.
The current world-wide pattern of poverty and wealth is not just, and therefore is not ethically acceptable.

5. What does Singer say?
Every serious ethicist would say we should prevent what is bad when we can do so without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.
In the case of world poverty, this means that helping is morally required – not merely something it is nice to do for the people who feel like it.