Datasets:
DebateLabKIT
/
deepa2-corpus

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
text
stringlengths
0
1.71k
fact that in the rich countries we feed most of our grain to
animals, converting it into meat, milk, and eggs. Because this
is a highly inefficient process, people in rich countries are responsible
for the consumption of far more food than those in
poor countries who eat few animal products. If we stopped
feeding animals on grains and soybeans, the amount of food
saved would - if distributed to those who need it - be more
than enough to end hunger throughout the world.
These facts about animal food do not mean that we can easily
solve the world food problem by cutting down on animal products,
but they show that the problem is essentially one of distribution
rather than production. The world does produce
enough food. Moreover, the poorer nations themselves could
220
Rich and Poor
produce far more if they made more use of improved agricultural
techniques.
So why are people hungry? Poor people cannot afford to buy
grain grown by farmers in the richer nations. Poor farmers cannot
afford to buy improved seeds, or fertilisers, or the machinery
needed for drilling wells and pumping water. Only by transferring
some of the wealth of the rich nations to the poor can
the situation be changed.
That this wealth exists is clear. Against the picture of absolute
poverty that McNamara has painted, one might pose a picture
of 'absolute affluence'. Those who are absolutely affluent are
not necessarily affluent by comparison with their neighbours,
but they are affluent by any reasonable definition of human
needs. This means that they have more income than they need
to provide themselves adequately with all the basic necessities
of life. After buying (either directly or through their taxes) food,
shelter, clothing, basic health services, and education, the absolutely
affluent are still able to spend money on luxuries. The
absolutely affluent choose their food for the pleasures of the
palate, not to stop hunger; they buy new clothes to look good,
not to keep warm; they move house to be in a better neighbourhood
or have a playroom for the children, not to keep out
the rain; and after all this there is still money to spend on stereo
systems, video-cameras, and overseas holidays.
At this stage I am making no ethical judgments about absolute
affluence, merely pointing out that it exists. Its defining characteristic
is a significant amount of income above the level necessary
to provide for the basic human needs of oneself and one's
dependents. By this standard, the majority of citizens of Western
Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the
oil-rich Middle Eastern states are all absolutely affluent. To
quote McNamara once more:
'The average citizen of a developed country enjoys wealth beyond
the wildest dreams of the one billion people in countries with
221
Practical Ethics
per capita incomes under $200: These, therefore, are the countries
- and individuals - who have wealth that they could, without
threatening their own basic welfare, transfer to the absolutely
poor.
At present, very little is being transferred. Only Sweden, the
Netherlands, Norway, and some of the oil-exporting Arab states
have reached the modest target, set by the United Nations, of
0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP). Britain gives 0.31
per cent of its GNP in official development assistance and a
small additional amount in unofficial aid from voluntary organisations.
The total comes to about £2 per month per person,
and compares with 5.5 per cent of GNP spent on alcohol. and
3 per cent on tobacco. Other, even wealthier nations, give little
more: Germany gives 0.41 per cent and Japan 0.32 per cent.
The United States gives a mere 0.15 per cent of its GNP.
THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF MURDER?
If these are the facts, we cannot avoid concluding that by not
giving more than we do, people in rich countries are allowing
those in poor countries to suffer from absolute poverty, with
consequent malnutrition, ill health, and death. This is not a
conclusion that applies only to governments. It applies to each
absolutely affluent individual. for each of us has the opportunity
to do something about the situation; for instance, to give our
time or money to voluntary organisations like Oxfam, Care,
War on Want, Freedom from Hunger, Community Aid Abroad,
and so on. If, then, allowing someone to die is not intrinsically
different from killing someone, it would seem that we are all
murderers.
Is this verdict too harsh? Many will reject it as self-evidently
absurd. They would sooner take it as showing that allowing to
die cannot be equivalent to killing than as showing that living
in an affluent style without contributing to an overseas aid
agency is ethically equivalent to going over to Ethiopia and
222
I,
Rich and Poor
shooting a few peasants. And no doubt. put as bluntly as that.
the verdict is too harsh.
There are several significant differences between spending
money on luxuries instead of using it to save lives, and deliberately
shooting people.
First, the motivation will normally be different. Those who
deliberately shoot others go out of their way to kill; they presumably
want their victims dead, from malice, sadism, or some
equally unpleasant motive. A person who buys a new stereo
system presumably wants to enhance her enjoyment of music
- not in itself a terrible thing. At worst, spending money on
luxuries instead of giving it away indicates selfishness and.indifference
to the sufferings of others, characteristics that may