The following is a debate over the question: What moral obligation does the First world have to the third world? To give context to the question read on, and explore the SlaveryFootprint.org resource here.
Let’s begin with Peter Singer’s 1972 Famine Relief Argument. It is important to note that Singer writes in the early 1970s:
1. Lack of food & shelter & medicine is bad.
2. 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.
For example, getting wet in order to save a drowning child.
3. It is in our power to prevent this bad thing.
4. We can prevent it without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.
Conclusion: Therefore, we ought to prevent the lack of food & shelter.
5. The only way to prevent lack of food & shelter without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance is to give maximally (or at least very much more than we currently do).
CONCLUSION: Therefore, we ought to give maximally (or at least very much more than we currently do).
According to Singer, there is no moral difference between a child suffering or dying right in front of you and on the other side of the world. The only differences are psychological in nature. Therefore, society should expect people to give charitable donations to those in need. If you are able to help ease the suffering of another person without sacrificing something comparable, you should. Singer claims that if everyone gave about $5 or whatever is equivalent, we would be able to swiftly respond to major disasters like in Houston, Texas last year.
What sorts of sacrifices are really obligatory? From a moral standpoint, what is my duty as a citizen of the world?
One powerful resource that might have something to say here is SlaveryFootprint.org. The group educates people about the impact their lifestyle choices have on people on the other side of the world. The survey attributes an estimated number of slaves that exist and work directly because of the respondent’s lifestyle by assessing 11 lifestyle factors. When I took the survey my answer was 30…
Initially, I was skeptical about the survey; I had never thought about the possibility that my actions and lifestyle directly lead to human trafficking and modern day slavery. Regardless of the survey’s accuracy, the rhetorical message behind it holds true: be aware of how your decisions impact the rest of the world. Consumerism drives the demand for cheap labor(post to come on human trafficking). Take a look at Eritrea, Nigeria, and other dictatorships worldwide: economic strife is one of the major reasons human rights issues arise.
Assessing today’s global economic climate, let me pose a question. What are today’s citizens’ moral obligations to give? Singer would say that it is obligatory depending on your own economic standing: even if you can’t give a lot, give something.
To conclude, I hope sharing Singer’s arguments in conjunction with the Slavery Footprint Survey begins a conversation about the connections between economies of the world. Economies don’t act autonomously. There are kids working in factories 14 hours a day so that you and I can go to Walmart and buy a 3-pack of jeans for $28.99. Simply understanding the impact of your purchases and lifestyle can make a difference.
Kyle Huber 