Do you have an obligation to help fight world hunger?

Jennifer Baranowski

PHCC-104-SF3

Professor Nachum Turetzky, PhD

January 24, 2012

 

Do you have an obligation to help fight world hunger?

     Anybody who lives in a developed nation with a television set has seen commercials for aid organizations like UNICEF, Oxfam, and Feed the Children. Their advertisements tug at the heartstrings of average working human being. Children are seen in misery, the hunger pains visible on their faces, with their malnourished, ravaged bodies lying limp like dish rags in the arms of their distraught mothers. Anyone with a soul would feel sadness. Most westerners cannot imagine the pain – after all, what could possibly be worse than watching your child die of malnutrition? Should we have empathy? Yes. Do we have an obligation? No. We do not have an obligation to help fight world hunger. But we SHOULD fight world hunger because of empathy.

     Nations who are plagued with world hunger are often nations that have been impacted by wars, corrupt leaders, and corrupt governments. Resources there have been misappropriated by dishonest officials or through ignorance. The first world, with its resources and its high standards of living for its citizens, are capable of acting in the interests of those impacted by hunger. Peter Singer writes, "the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society… If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it" (Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality [revised edition]). World hunger is more than a money issue - sure, we can throw money at the problem, but what happens after the money runs out? After we assist with rectifying the immediate crisis, verifying that the assistance is going to the intended recipients and punishing those governments that abuse it, it would be wise to empower those who were directly impacted by famine. In addition to providing food to the hungry, we could provide them with tools to feed themselves, like fishing and farming equipment. We could educate them on how to grow food and how to dig a well. I think the old adage "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach him to fish, and he eats for a lifetime" is important – it would give those people pride and self-sufficiency. Most people do not want a hand out, they want a hand up.

 

     In answer to the posed question, we do not have an obligation to fight world hunger. We in the first world are fortunate enough to live in a relatively free world. We are obligated only to not harm or impede the rights of others. Because of the fact that we as a society have been blessed with abundance, we need to look at how we live and "Consider the consequences of our actions on those who are impacted by them and get beyond yourself” (Singer, Singer Solution to World Poverty). We need to look at helping those who suffer from hunger like this: although we were fortunate enough to have been born in a world where we do not experience the plague of hunger, we could have been. We need to treat those who suffer like we would want to be treated. We should help our unfortunate brothers and sisters. We SHOULD fight world hunger.

 Works Cited:
Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality [revised edition]." Philosophy and Public Affairs 1.1 (1972): 229-243. www.utilitarian.net.

Singer, Peter. Singer Solution to World Poverty Dan Rather. n.d. uploaded Jan 18, 2010. 22 January 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7XHUXvEKU.