2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Introduction
For me it began with a haunting. I was in the downstairs bathroom in my 100-year-old tumble-down house, washing my face and looking in the mirror that I share with two of my housemates. My mind was turning in circles around the interesting perspective that I had been gaining all semester in a senior seminar on poverty, a general education class on environment and society, and a few house discussions over dinner about rich men and the eyes of needles. In between splashes of water and rigorous exfoliating, I caught a glimpse of my little Indian child. He had been reaching out to me all week from the gossamer shadows, begging me for the rinds that I was throwing away and choking on my exhaust. Now here he was again, reaching his under-developed, small and grimy hand into my face cream and shoving it into his open mouth. He was eating my cosmetics! Or, more poignantly, I was slathering his food-money all over my face.
And so I began to wonder about the intricacies of the social positions that we fill, and whether or not I can morally occupy the position that I was born into. There are very intelligent people that question the wealth, and the use of that wealth, in the United States. Those questions and others surrounding them are what I will explore in this paper, including whether or not United States citizens really are much more affluent, what the ethical obligations of an affluent elite would be or would not be, and whether anything really can be done for a world that seems to be plummeting toward environmental disaster. This paper will concentrate on the philosophical arguments for and against the obligations of the affluent. I will show that the affluent does have an obligation to assist that needy in at least one primary way.
Poverty doesn�t make headlines. That�s why the majority of people can slide through daily life without experiencing a haunting like mine. But I hope that this paper is a haunting for you, and that it challenges you to explore the facts, the figures and the reality beyond this simple presentation of a very complex topic. (Further reading is included in Appendix A.)
We Are the Affluent
Let us first establish some background facts and key concepts. Let us explore the categories of country income, categories of luxury and need, definitions of poverty and affluence, and the statistics behind these definitions.
The country income categories as given by the World Bank�s World Development Report 1995 are the Low Income Countries, the Lower-Middle Income Countries, the Upper-Middle Income Countries, and the High Income Countries. The High Income Countries, which include the United States and Canada and many Western European countries are home to only 812 million people. The Upper-Middle Income Countries are home to an even smaller 501 million. The Lower-Middle Income Countries are home to 1.1 billion people. There are 3.1 billion people who live in the Low Income Countries, as of 1995. In the Low Income Countries the infant mortality rate is nine times as high as in other countries, but the population growth is faster.(1) Life in these lowest income countries is beyond the reach of our imaginations amongst the population in the highest income countries. "The average citizen of a developed country [that�s us] enjoys wealth beyond the wildest dreams of the one billion people in countries with per capita incomes under $200."(2) There�s a major gap between the lives that we find normal in the United States and the lives the majority of the world population lead.
To make it easy for the average United States citizen to understand, I have devised my own way to categorize the people in the world. There are four categories: Those who have luxuries; Those who have no needs, no luxuries; Those who have needs; and Those who lack all basic necessities. Look around you. Think about your day. Every appliance in your kitchen, every shoe in you closet: that is a luxury. It is not a need that you drink your morning cup of coffee, that you get speedily to work in your car, or that you listen to even one CD in your entire life. And the water that comes �free� out of your tap, that�s a need that a quarter of the world does not have even for a price. A highway rest area slightly unkempt that you would shy away from: another need that almost half the world is denied (sanitation). The shack down the street that you avert your eyes from, another need not met all around the globe (shelter), while your spacious suburb home: an excessive luxury.
It is safe to say that the vast majority of the citizenship of our country rests comfortably in the very top category. There are, however, about 30 million people living below the United States �poverty� level in our country, including over 6 million homeless people.(3) But to say that someone in the United States is below the �poverty� level may not be saying much. (�Poverty� in our country is relative to the rest of the very much affluent that perceive the lesser-affluent as needy.) Granted, the homeless in the United States are at least in the category of Those who have needs, but most of them do not lack all basic necessities, since they have health care in emergencies, free basic education, fresh water in public fountains, sanitation in public restrooms and access to food and a place to stay in the form of homeless shelters.
As Peter Singer notes, the citizens of the United States are �absolutely affluent�. The absolutely affluent are defined by him as affluent not by comparison, but by the standard of reasonable human needs. The absolutely affluent have more income than is needed for necessities and have money left over for luxuries.(4) Not only are the United States citizens absolutely affluent, but a major part of the world that we are familiar with, including Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the oil-rich Middle East are absolutely affluent, generally speaking.(5)
David G. Myers writes,
�We are fortunate to be living when [and where] we do. Moments ago, I made a cup of tea in a microwave oven, sat down in a comfortable ergonomic chair in my climate-controlled office, turned on my personal computer, and answered electronic mail from friends in Hong Kong and Scotland. Planning for tomorrow�s trip, I check the Seattle weather forecast via the Web, then leap to a University of California survey archive to glean information for this book. Gazing through my double-glazed window, I looked across a landscaped courtyard to a state-of-the-art library that feeds to my desktop screen information hidden among millions of published articles. What a different world from the one I was born into barely half a century ago�a world without broadcast television, fax machines, computers, jets or cell phones.�(6)
While we find ourselves completely comfortable in an absolute affluence that is unsurpassed by any other culture in history�you�d rather be who you are today than the king of England a couple centuries ago based on material wealth(7)�1.2 billion people exist in absolute poverty. In other words, 23% of the world�s population are absolutely poverty-stricken, a condition we barely understand in our country.(8) This absolute poverty is limited to the poor nations, and is not even found in our own country.(9) It is defined by Robert McNamara, former president of the World Bank, as �a condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality, and low life expectancy as to be beneath human decency.�(10) Absolute poverty is poverty by any standard. �Poverty at the absolute level is life at the very margin of existence,� continues McNamara. �The absolute poor are severely deprived human beings struggling to survive in a set of squalid and degraded circumstances almost beyond the power of our sophisticated imaginations and privileged circumstances to conceive.�(11) The relative poverty that we see in the industrialized countries is relative to the excessive wealth that we see in their close neighbors; you and I.(12)
As a United States citizen, you may find it hard to believe that you are considered an �incredibly rich aristocracy� living next to over one billion desperately poor neighbors.(13) That�s because, as the Newsweek statistics tell us, United States citizens earning upwards of $33,000, $40,000 and $55,000 per year still feel that they are on the edge of poverty.(14) In the words of Dom Helder Camar, �Money has a dangerous way of putting scales on one�s eyes, a dangerous way of freezing people�s hands, eyes, lips and hearts.�(15) The truth is that we do, as the affluent minority, believe that we barely have enough to survive in modest comfort.(16) But that is just not true. We are, as stated earlier, materially more wealthy than any culture in history. I will continue this discussion in a later section (�A Case Study of the United States�).
The statistics that demonstrate our wealth are astounding and unignorable. People in poor countries consume 180 kilos of grain per person per year. North Americans consume 900 kilos of grain per person per year.(17) Besides being overweight and eating extremely well, the reason that our grain consumption is so high is due to the fact that we are also over-proteined. Each step down the food chain, energy dissipates 90%. It takes ten times as much grain to feed a cow that I eat for energy as it does for me to eat the grain more directly in the form of bread or crackers, etc. Over 200 million United States citizens consume enough grain (mostly in livestock) to feed over 1 billion people in the Third World.(18)
The richest 20% of the world are 150 times richer than the poorest 20%. And the 358 billionaires (as of 1994) were equal in income to the entire bottom 45% of the world.(19) Wealth is distributed very unequally. And guess where a majority of these wealthy elite live? A fraction of what the United States spends on defense would take care of starvation and malnutrition for most of the Third World.(20) And perhaps two of the most shocking statistics about our affluence that I came across are as follows: �UNICEF estimates that the total cost of providing basic social services in the developing countries, including health, education, family planning, and clean water, would cost $30 to $40 billion per year. The rich of this world spend more than this on golf each year;�(21) and people in the United States spend another $30 to $50 billion each year on dieting and related expenditures to counter the effects of an over-abundant diet and poor dietary choices and to reduce caloric intake.(22)
The United States uses 30% of the world�s yearly resources, 33% of the paper, 25% of the fossil fuel and 20% of the metals. That is an incredible amount, since we are such a small percentage of the world population�only 4%. Each United States citizen uses 222 pounds of resources in a day, excluding food, which adds up to 41 tons in a year. Developed countries are 25% of the population, but we use 75% of the resources. The United States population consumes half of all the milk and three-quarters of the meat. We are living like Marie Antoinette who, when told that some did not have bread, she said, �Well, let them eat cake.� Even compared to other developed countries, the United States uses over two times as much energy as Japan, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. We use 100 times as much as India and China, per person. (We�re extremely inefficient.)(23)
We have oftentimes shut ourselves off from the reality of the larger world and remained very comfortable. It is true that not every person exposed to the truth would come to the same conclusions about giving and about foreign aid, but only a minority even explore the truth. Advertisements �offer demonically convincing justification for enjoying our affluence and neglecting three billion neighbors."(24) The pleasure of our lives beckon us to enjoy it without guilt. And a lot of the time honest ignorance from lack of education contributes to the enjoyment of millions. Ironically enough, as Bellah said, �That happiness is to be attained through limitless material acquisition is denied by every religion and philosophy known to man, but is preached incessantly by every American television set.�(25) There are those who see the downfall of a society such as ours, proclaiming, �A social structure built on the heretical ideas that the scientific method is the only way to reach truth and value and that material things are all-important will eventually self-destruct."(26)
Note: If you are currently entertaining the idea that you can remain affluent and bring the rest of the world up to affluence as well, you may dismiss the idea right now. It is imperative that we live simply if we want others to attain a satisfactory level of living. If the entire population of today�s world were living like United States citizens, only 15% of the earth could be sustained.(27)
The Global Statistics
There are overwhelming statistics that show that the affluent minority is more than able to meet the needs of the poor majority. To what extent the affluent should or could help the poverty-stricken is debatable, and I will deal with both the philosophical and practical concerns later in the paper. At this point I would like to concentrate on the statistics dealing with the poor, stating in facts and figures who they are as a whole and a little about how we relate to them.
They are the desperately poor two-thirds of the world population.(28) They are 400 million people (180 million children) who are at this moment suffering from malnutrition.(29) They are the 17 million people that die each year from infectious and parasitic diseases that we know in the United States how to prevent.(30) They are the 14 million children under five who die annually from malnutrition and infection and the half of poor children who die before their fifth birthday.(31) They are those who can not afford our grain, our improved seeds, fertilizers, or machines or our irrigation techniques.(32) They are the 10,000 children each day who died in 1980 from diarrheal dehydration.(33) They are the cretins; those people whose bodies and brains are stunted and deformed. They are those who have iodine deficiency which leads to goitre, a swelling of the thyroid gland which leads to mental impairment and affects 655 million.(34) They are those with protein deficiency which ends in permanent brain damage.(35) They are the 1.45 billion people who have no access to health services, the 1.33 billion who do not have access to safe drinking water, and the 2.25 billion who do not have access to sanitation.(36) They are those with marasmus, a severe form of malnutrition.(37) They are the �people already devoting 60% to 80% of their income to food [who] simply eat less [in famine] and die sooner. Death usually results from diseases that underfed bodies cannot resist."(38) They are the 1.3 billion people who live on less that $1 a day (in 1996) and the majority of the world population�3 billion�who live on less than $2 per day.(39) They are the 34,000 children who die daily from hunger and preventable diseases.(40)
Life for this two-thirds of the world includes daily concerns that the affluent entertain rarely. For example, �For millions of people, eking out a day-to-day existence, an inactive child is not as serious a problem as an inactive wage-earner. But malnutrition produces millions of retarded children that become a serious problem in the future."(41) But what causes a form of life so desperate in comparison with ours? Ron Sider sights a complex system of causal factors that can lead to either immediate poverty or, more likely, poverty for other people later in history. These causes include �ethnic conflicts, religious wars, and tribal hostility today [that] produce tens of millions of refugees abruptly snatched from their homes and livlihood."(42) Other causes are choosing to misuse drugs, alcohol, and sex (choices made not in a vaccuum, however) other personal choices, complex social structures, misguided cultural ideas, natural disasters, human disasters and lack of technology.(43)
The Environmental Issues
The growing threats to the earth pinpointed by the National Geographic Society in 1988 are still plaguing environmental scientists and activists in the new millennium. These twelve dangers were discovered at various times throughout history, and almost all will reach a climax sometime in the near future. These threats are population pressure, air pollution, ozone concerns, acid rain, water pollution, water diversion, toxic wastes, radiation perils, species extinction, fisheries depletion, deforestation and desertification.(44) This list does not include another major concern that has become a very real problem in the past fifteen years: global warming. These thirteen issues comprise the major environmental concerns that play a role in both the future of the earth and the future of every human being in the world.
Environmental issues are very important in discussing what can and should be done for the poor in the world, as well as understanding and directing the future for everyone on the planet. For example, understanding overgrazing and other agricultural problems makes the need to switch to a more-grain and less protein-oriented diet more sensible. Today, much of the best agricultural land is used to raise cattle and to export crops.(45) This means that we need to concentrate efforts to feed the world�s people by learning to eat less meat, and also to teach people in all countries how to best use their agricultural land to provide for their own people. There are also other factors involved in teaching everyone how to farm so that the soil retains its nutrients and so that erosion is minimized. Many of these issues are extremely complex and we need to understand our environment to maximize its productivity in a long-minded manner.
One reason why this is such an issue is because of the massive population boom in the past century. In 40 years, according to recent statistics and predictions, there will be twice as many mouths to feed. Population growth is exponential, and we are booming in the present age. Exponential growth is counter-intuitive. Suppose you have a pond and you plant a special kind of lily pad that produces another lily pad just like it every day. You watch each day as the lily pads fill a corner of your pond. The last week of the first month, when the lily pads are looking very nice, you leave for a week-long vacation. On the 30th day of the month you return and the lily pads have completely filled your pond, have choked out all the other plants and run-out all the animals. When was the pond half full? Half-way through the month? You might think so. But the little pond was only half full the day before. A couple days before, everything looked just fine.(46)
The main reasons why animals (including humans) die is competition for food, lack of space, being in their own waste, and from other organisms. When the earth reaches carrying capacity (which we may already have reached, or may be very quickly approaching), there are three possible options. The Population Crash Model says that 50-90% of the world�s people will die off very quickly in a huge catastrophe. The second scenario is that the population will stabilize naturally at optimum levels. The third scenario is that the population will stabilize at the maximum levels (as there are small population booms and population dips). Right now, environmentalists suggest this maximum capacity is near 30 billion, but would have to include government control and near-poverty vegetarianism for everyone.(47)
On top of this, there is a strong case that can be made that the Christian West is responsible for the population boom in the rest of the world. Many years ago, when we were colonizing and sending missionaries around the world, we took medical aid with our ideas. The problem is, we did not also take education and liberation for women. Death control without birth control. It�s easy to see why a lot of nations suddenly grew in size so quickly. Only when some of them later adopted our culture did they begin to accept the freedom of women, and therefore slow down their population rise. Today, many of them still have our medicine, but do not agree with women�s liberation or in birth control itself. Many believe that suggesting to a country how to deal with its women and with its procreation is much more evasive than giving them medical help. But it may be necessary.
A second reason why the environment is so intimately tied to the issues of wealth and poverty is that the world is getting smaller and less inhabitable thanks to human practices in the Industrial and Technology Ages. We are consuming excessively and being irresponsible. This affects everyone.
There are some simple rules to help us understand all this. First, the world is complex. Second, everything is interconnected. Third, there are no true consumers, only users. Fourth, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Fifth, we live in a finite world with finite resources, many of which are nonrenewable. The law of the conservation of matter states that everything comes from somewhere and everything goes somewhere. You can�t throw anything away and you can�t really consume anything. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed. In energy transformation you don�t break even. In fact, the entropy law (or second law of thermodynamics) states that when energy changes forms, useful energy is always degraded into a dispersed, lower-quality form, ultimately as dispersed heat. Energy decreases about 90% at each step. This is why, for example, it takes 100% grain to feed a cattle that then gives humans 10% of the original energy in its beef. The farther you are from eating plants, the less there is to eat.(48)
The Political Issues
I am not going to say much about the political issues, since I scarcely understand them. But I will make some important points that I have discovered across the board in my research on the poverty-stricken and on the affluent. As with understanding and manipulating the environment, it is extremely important to be educated about and to take an active part in the social and governmental aspects of the world in order to change it. Those who have come to the conclusion that we should help our neighbors have, for the most part, stated that we must do so wisely and with certain stipulations. I will talk about these more in the last section of the paper, but right now it will suffice to point out that certain governments will not perpetuate a provision of aid. Some governments will not even let aid reach those who need it most. Therefore, it is obvious that certain governments should not receive our trust, our monies, or our help. Plus, �Help should not be given in a manner or to an extent that reduces the ability of the person (or group) that is helped to be self-reliant and self-determining."(49) Whether or not there is another creative way to help individuals in any given country is a more complex and sometimes discouraging question that should be further explored for each people-group.
The United Nations decided a while ago that they were going to make a goal (in GNP percentage) for all developed nations to attempt to meet for government giving. Right now, the United States ranks dead last among the major western donors of foreign aid, in per cent.(50) Ironically, in 1991 the Western world spent 3.55% GNP (gross national product) on military expenditures and only .34% GNP on economic aid.(51) It�s all messed up. The funny thing is, 69% of United States citizens asked by Newsweek about giving said that we gave more than other developed nations.(52) Even more crazy is the fact that the more rich we become, the less we give.(53)
It�s sad, but presently the government aid situation is looking even more bleak than in the past, especially on the environmental front. While on one hand �the Federal Government, the largest energy user with 500,000 buildings, could spend $5.2 billion dollars to reduce its energy consumption 20% and recoup the investment in little more than five years,"(54) the highest government officials are the ones turning their heads the other way. �When Ari Fleisher was asked [in May, 2001] whether the President would be asking citizens to change their lifestyle given that we consume more energy per capita than any other people on the planet, he said, �That�s a big no.�"(55) Unfortunately, its obvious to many that President George W. Bush has interests in business instead of the needy, and understands (and looks to preserve) the lifestyle of the extremely wealthy much more than he wants to consider the life of the poor. Its free business way over a sustainable planet. In his first 76 days in office, he made policy decisions that reversed much positive action, declaring CO2 shouldn�t be regulated as a pollutant, kept loose standards for arsenic in drinking water, disassembled the framework for the Kyoto global environmental accord, denied workplace relief for millions (especially women) who perform repetitive tasks, and passed a tax cut that benefits most those at the top.(56) In almost all cases, the reason for the action was that it would cost big business and wealthy people in order to help those with less.
Further political consideration should also be given to our own government�s participation in giving (versus on a personal level), our capitalist economy and the idea of nationalism. Involvement in one�s government is a very powerful way in which one can help the �relative poor� in the United States and the absolute poor elsewhere in the world.
�Live and Let Die� (-Paul Mcartney)
Now that we have considered the statistics pointing to what affluence and poverty are, who is affluent and poverty-stricken, and some of the peripheral issues related to helping the poor, it is time to question whether or not we should be helping the poor. The questions surrounding the poor and the affluent and the obligation of the affluent are recent philosophical explorations. The debates that I chose to follow, therefore, are all contemporary, although at least one of them draws on the philosophy of Kant.
First I will give the arguments for not helping others. These arguments include those of Garrett Hardin and John Hospers and also include trickle-down economics and that �the poor will always be with us.� Then, in the next section, I will use arguments from Peter Singer, Robert N. Van Wyk and Kai Neilsen to show that the poor should be helped.
Garrett Hardin is, perhaps in some way, the strongest advocate for leaving the poor to themselves. Interestingly enough, he helped to draft a statement that declared that the world as we know it would be ruined by the year 2000.(57) Maybe this is why we may want to take what he says with a grain of salt and perhaps temper the gloom and doom with which he sometimes conveys his ideas. Nonetheless, he does bring up some very legitimate concerns and discusses some philosophical issues that should be considered by anyone who takes this issue seriously.
For Hardin, the end result of giving aid to poor nations now is when all the countries are equally miserable and poor in the near future.(58) In the face of blind pity, �foreign aid has become a habit that can apparently survive in the absence of any known justification."(59) He planned to change all this with the publication of an article that made an analogy of the world. In it, he attacked the idea of the earth as a spaceship and called the earth instead a lifeboat. The idea of this lifeboat metaphor is that it is limited in capacity and in fact we have already exceeded its capacity to support us. Our options at this point are 1) �complete justice, complete catastrophe,� which is what the present-day Christian and Marxian ideals would have us do, or 2) get rid of the safety feature in our country/lifeboat and pay dearly for it later, or 3) preserve the safety feature in the United States and let no more into the boat.(60) If we help others to keep their lives and thereby maintain their population (if not increase it), then a mutual ruin is inevitable in the �commons� of this world.(61)
We are in a pejoristic system where matters are only made worse by what we are doing. A melioristic system is one that produces continual improvement, and a food-help system can not be this by nature. The input from a World Food Bank contributes to a growth in population. The new larger population has an inevitable emergency because of its size and takes again input from the World Food Bank. The population grows again and the problem repeats itself, worsening with each growth of the population. �The process is brought to an end only by the total collapse of the whole system, producing a catastrophe of scarcely imaginable proportions."(62) This is what Hardin calls the �ratchet effect.�
The equation is rather simple for Hardin, and he says �It is essential that those in power resist the temptation to convert extra food into extra babies," (63) which is what he blames the population surges on. When there is enough food in a country to have a healthy birth rate, there should still be responsible population control practiced. He addresses these issues because it is indeed important, based on the environmental concerns already outlined, that we consider the long-term effects of what we are doing. Sometimes Hardin uses strong images and statements to make his point and to make this point he gives a quote from Alan Gregg, the former Vice President of the Rockefeller Foundation, �liken[ing] the growth and spreading of humanity over the surface of the earth to the metastasis of cancer in the human body, wryly remarking that �cancerous growths demand food; but, as far as I know, they have never been cured by getting it.'"(64)
Another example of Hardin�s approach is his statement to those who feel guilty about not helping others that they should get out of the boat and sacrifice their spot to someone else. That person certainly won�t feel guilty about taking the spot and pretty soon the guilty conscience will disappear from the boat altogether. �The lifeboat, as it were, purifies itself of guilt."(65) Then everyone will be able to proceed rationally, reasonably and unimpeded. However, you may want to ask yourself about floating in the ocean in a lifeboat full of Garrett Hardins. It tends to scare me quite a bit.
Hardin believes that the positive light in which we tend to view immigration in this country is due to the guilty type of people, but also to the motivation by big businesses who want cheap labour.(66) However, these people are short-sighted about the direction they are taking our country and, ultimately, the world. In reality, as Tertullian said, �The scourges of pestilence, famine, wars and earthquakes have come to be regarded as a blessing to overcrowded nations, since they serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race."(67) Giving aid to other countries would disrupt this natural process and to foolishly make the condition worse to the point that there is a worldwide calamity of unthinkable proportions caused by thick-skulled do-gooders.
Hardin makes a wonderful point about all that must be taken into consideration with helping others. He says, �Food can, perhaps, be significantly increased, but what about clean beaches, unspoiled forests, and solitude? If we satisfy the need for food in a growing population we necessarily decrease the supply of other goods."(68) He points out that aid in food amounts to the ruin of natural resources,(69) assuming a pessimistic outcome for any attempts to both feed the world and do it in a resourceful and responsible way. Unfortunately, his pessimism in this respect is currently met by facts about the world as it is.
There are some oversights in his philosophy, however. In his article, he gives no other options but a food bank for the poor of the world, and most people, even the most well-intentioned, would have a similar problem with a food bank. I couldn�t help but wonder if he wouldn�t have come to different conclusions if he had explored other options. Perhaps not. Also, when addressing the critiques of his view of population control, he simply fought statistics with statistics, which is maybe all that he could do. However, it is widely believed by environmentalists that when a population increases drastically in another country because of technology and industrialization (�development�), it soon thereafter has a fall in population that leads to stabilization. Many of the present industrialized countries followed this pattern and are being emulated by other countries in the present. The original rise in population is often caused by medical advances that lengthen and save life and the drop in rate is seen to be caused by birth control which is indirectly caused by education and liberty of women in newly-forming cultures. Hardin simply says that there are examples of two countries that did not follow this trend, and also that after World War 2 there was a brief increase all over the world in both GNP (which is the indicator) and birth rate.(70) This hardly disproves the theory in general, although he makes it very clear he has little faith in it.
Libertarianism is another window through which to view the poverty-affluence problem. John Hospers was a former libertarian candidate for United States President(71) and has written articles on the affluent and their freedom to be affluent. One such article was titled �What Libertarianism Is.�
Libertarianism is the idea that when controls are taken off of businesses the economy will flourish and less people will be hungry(72)... specifically. More broadly, it is the idea that individuals should have the freedom to do whatever they want. (I will qualify this more throughout my explanation of libertarianism.) The idea that a free economy will benefit the poor is never exactly proven by Hospers, and it is interesting to note the way that today�s economy has or has not helped the poor. But this is a major theme for the libertarian, nonetheless.
Libertarianism is the doctrine that each person is the owner of her own life. Each person has the right to act of their own choices unless they infringe on others� abilities to choose.(73) Libertarianism has three main tenets: that no one is anyone�s master or slave; that other people�s lives are not yours (to dispose of); and that �no human being should be a nonvoluntary mortgage on the life of another."(74) Rights do entail duties, but the duties are to not infringe on others� rights.(75)
Libertarians use the term �moral cannibal� to refer to those people who feed on the souls of others.(76) What they are making reference to is the concept that those who infringe on the freedoms of others are morally wrong. There is no point at which you can morally demand, force or coerce someone into doing something, or especially, into giving up something that is their property. This includes, very much so, the taxing of the government on its free citizens. Even for the sake of redistribution in the form of welfare or social security, the premise is wrong. In Hospers words, �All those who demand this or that as a �free service� are unconsciously evading the fact that there is in reality no such thing as free services. All man-made goods and services are the result of human expenditure of time and effort,"(77) and again, �To expect something �for free� is to expect it to be paid for by others whether they choose to or not.(78)
If it�s not obvious already, Hospers would affirm that there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a hidden cost in everything. And since someone then has to pay that fee, there is no right of anyone to demand it from them. Therefore, all giving organizations should be strictly on a volunteer basis. If you want to give your time or your money, you have an equal right to be able to do that. If you do not want to give your time or money, you are never rightly obligated to do so.
There are three types of laws: 1) laws protecting individuals against themselves, 2) laws protecting individuals against aggression from others and 3) laws requiring people to help other people. Libertarians would completely reject the third set, would reject the first set, and would accept only the second set.(79) Says Hospers, �The only proper role of government, according to libertarians, is that of the protector of the citizen against aggression by other individuals�Its proper role is as the embodiment of retaliatory use of force against anyone who initiates its use."(80) The government�s only job is to recognize and to protect already existing rights.(81)
Part of this extremely restrictive view of government probably comes from fear or from honest suspicion.
�Government is the most dangerous institution known to man. Throughout history it has violated the rights of men more than any individual or group of individuals could do: It has killed people, enslaved them, sent them to forced labour and concentration camps, and regularly robbed and pillaged them of the fruits of their expended labour."(82)
Therefore, the government should not have the power to force people to do anything that they do not want to, unless they are infringing on the rights of others. No person or government has the right to interfere with a person�s liberty, life or property because each individual has a right to act as they choose.(83) �The wealth that some men have produced should not be fair game for looting by government, to be used for whatever purposes its representatives determines, no matter what their motives in so doing may be. The theft of your money by a robber is not justified by the fact that he used it to help his injured mother."(84)
Government has also always been the chief enemy of the right to property.(85) Property rights are a fundamental right, according to libertarians. Hospers defines it as the right to work for and non-coercively obtain money and services which are voluntarily exchanged for property.(86) Hospers even goes so far as to say that �Without the right to property, the right to life itself amounts to little: How can you sustain your life if you can not plan ahead?�(87) You can see that right to property means a lot to a libertarian. �Indeed, the right to property may well be considered second only to the right to life. Even the freedom of speech is limited by considerations of property.�(88) Again, �Without property right, no other rights are possible. Depriving you of property is depriving you of the means by which you live."(89)
You might think that there would be some form of government interjection that could be justifiable. But as we are discovering, to a libertarian there is no justified function of government as a Robin Hood. �All other roles of government, including protecting individuals from themselves or requiring people to help each other, are emphatically rejected by Hospers."(90) Libertarians view communism and socialism as disastrous propositions. �Since no one would be responsible for anything, the property would soon be destroyed, the food supply used up, the faculties non-functional. Beginning as a house that one family could use, it would end up as a house that no one could use."(91) And, �Well then, why shouldn�t every itinerant hippie just come in and take over sleeping in your beds and eating in your kitchen and not bothering to replace the food supply or clean up the mess?"(92) Although I hardly doubt that many people in our country would accept a free-for-all, Hospers sees disaster on the horizon. The most likely thing in reality is a democratic decision on what is appropriate giving. Right now, we seem to be fighting the other direction. We don�t give enough for the average citizen to be pleased with.
To tell you the truth, living in a country full of John Hospers scares me about as much as riding in a lifeboat full of Garrett Hardins. Hospers seems to assume that both the wealthy and the poor get their due. �As he is free to make his own decisions, so is he free to face their consequences."(93) If you work hard, then you will prosper. If you are a sluggard, you get what�s coming to you. Unfortunately, this is not at all the way the world works. And on top of that, there is not enough personal giving to do enough for the down-trodden. We retain a moral obligation to recognize and counter the injustice in this world. This would be difficult on an international level, but not impossible, without government intervention. Hospers largely ignores injustice in his essay, which I admit is the easiest thing to do.
Another poverty-affluence theory is �trickle-down economics.� This view, also known as �Reaganomics,� holds that when something bad happens (like someone throws a baseball through your front window), the fact that you have to replace that window makes it a good thing, since it feeds the economy and employs people to replace the window, to make the window, to drive the window to your house, etc. Some people view being affluent that way. Every time you spend your money it ends up going to someone else. The economy stays alive, someone lower on the totem pole eventually gets paid, and the world keeps turning. The concept is that the world is like a tree, and when it rains, the rain will eventually trickle down and reach the very lowest spot on the tree. Water doesn�t get caught in the leaves, especially when the economy is as satisfactory as it is today in the United States.
What is overlooked in this worldview is the power that the individual has to decide where the money flows. When you replace a window, your money is being paid to a middle-class United States window-man, glass factory worker, truck-driver, etc. Much of the time your money flows to the top-dog of the company, who has maybe millions or billions of dollars. Plus, multi-national corporations dominate our society today. Giving your hard-earned money to one of them by purchasing one of their products only ensures that it will be used on unfair trade, negative advertising, needless products, and countless other things you would disapprove of. Most of these companies don�t care about the environment or about humanity or justice. You, however, might. And consumerism contributes to the degradation of the environment. And, if you want your money to end up paying those who need it most by giving it to large companies, it would probably end up in another country in such a way that 12 cents goes to one eleven-year-old for a day�s worth of factory labour, another villager gets 50 cents for a whole week of factory labour, and so on and so forth. You didn�t authorize it, but you participated in it.
Another idea about the poverty issue is in the statement �the poor will always be with us.� It�s a Biblical statement. In John 12:8, Jesus says, �You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have Me."(94) What could this possibly mean? In the context of Christianity it could not possibly mean that you are to accept the poor and therefore be rid of an obligation to help them. That�s not how the verse was intended to work in the Bible. (See the Epilogue for further explanation.)
But the truth is there in the statement; the poor will always be with us. And despite the optimism of some, most of us believe that they are never going away completely. There will always be the oppressed, the down-trodden and the neglected as well. There will always be widows and orphans and the homeless. But the truth is also that, despite these facts, they are not excuses against the moral obligations that Singer, Van Wyk and Kant argue for in the next section. If Singer, Van Wyk and Kant are right about ethical responsibilities, and I think they are, then these responsibilities do not change in the face of never reaching perfection. One more person can have her needs met. Millions can. More importantly, some lives can be changed while you fulfill your personal moral duty.
�From each according to his ability, to each according to his need� (-Marx)
Peter Singer is one of the strong advocates for helping the poor. He believes that we all have a moral obligation to actively participate in relieving the distress of the poverty-stricken. He argues that we have an obligation to help others as long as something of equal or greater value is not being sacrificed in return.
The Acts and Omissions Doctrine says that �acts of killing innocent people are wrong, but omissions that result in death, for example, failing to feed starving people, are not wrong.� Singer rejects this.(95) Instead, he says that �if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.�(96)
Critics may note, in objection to Singer�s position, that allowing someone to die is not acceptable, but killing and allowing to die are not morally the same thing. The differences between killing and allowing to die are: 1) the motivation is different (the worst motivation for allowing to die is selfishness or indifference); 2) it�s not difficult to refrain from murder; 3) there is a greater certainty of the outcome with killing; 4) there are no identifiable individuals; and 5) the plight of the hungry is not specifically your fault. Singer responds to each of these reasons. That the motivation is different is weakened since the act of allowing to die still deserves (and receives) a big punishment. That it�s not hard to refrain from murder doesn�t hold since praise and blame do not equal rightness and wrongness. That there is a greater certainty of the outcome of direct murder doesn�t work as an argument because even if the certainty of giving in less, that does not excuse the giver from giving. The giver simply needs to be wise about her giving. That there are no identifiable individuals does not excuse anyone from giving, either. And that the plight of the hungry is not your doing is not consistent with history. History is a complex web of billions of people and many people are indirect causes of many other peoples� problems.(97)
According to Singer�s idea that you should prevent something bad except when something equal is at stake, the equation is as follows. 1) If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing something of equal significance, we should do it. 2) Absolute poverty is bad. 3) Some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing something of equal significance. Therefore, �We ought to prevent some absolute poverty.�(98)
Singer holds, in direct opposition to Hospers, that private property rights contradict obligations to give to the needy.(99) The real conflict in his theory against that of Hospers is that Singer admits that there is an obligation to help the needy. Then, he furthers his theory by saying that this obligation is greater than certain freedoms. Property rights are in contrast with earlier Christian views, like that of Aquinas, as well as with many other worldviews.(100) Moral obligation is stronger than freedom.
Singer creates his argument based on a series of comparisons. If one thing is more evil than another, then the one�s elimination takes precedence over and against the other. Luxuries like fashionable clothing, expensive dinners, etc. do not compare in moral significance to the suffering of the needy.(101) And �the conventionally accepted standard�a few coins in a collection tin when one is waved under you nose�is obviously far too low.�(102) Working only a little does not compensate for letting people starve. You need to educate yourself. You need to donate time to the cause. There is some proactive movement that is involved in a moral obligation to the poor, if you accept Singer�s argument.
Singer spends a large part of his essay answering to the foreseen (and already made) criticisms of helping the poor. I already mentioned briefly an argument earlier in the paper that Hardin mentioned. In it is the idea that helping the poor now increases the population in the future. Nearly all of Hardin�s essay is built around it. It is probably the strongest argument against Singer, in fact. But he answers it by asking if we should sit by and let people die based on a probability (somewhat slight, even) that we may perpetuate more and further deaths in the future.(103) It depends on whether or not you are a utilitarian. Hardin obviously is. Singer, though, has also been accused of being a utilitarian, although I am not sure why. If you believe that the individual life is more sacred, you may agree with Singer. Then again, if Hardin�s objections make sense, they would be hard for anyone to ignore.
The real question in this debate is whether or not helping the poor really will hurt the world in the future. It is an extremely sticky and complicated issue full of conflicting facts and figures. There are many, many pieces to the puzzle. There is the suggestion of triage, which would use resources as effectively as possible by saving those in the middle group of desperation who have a probability of being saved, but little probability of making it on their own.(104) Triage has its own complications, including who would be considered for each group and who would decide what desperation is. Singer responds by noting that applying triage at this point (before we have an emergency on our hands) would mean an end in respecting human life. We�re talking about watching as millions die.(105) According to some, like Singer, people are currently starving not because there is no food, but because it is distributed unequally.(106) Therefore, responding with triage now would be immoral.
As for the panic that our helping others would cause a disastrous population boom, Singer replies with the statement that the education, emancipation and employment of women decreases the birth rate. (107) Our help should come hand-in-hand with women�s liberation, or should be given in the form of women�s liberation. This may be one of those cases, too, where aid is not given to countries who refuse to take steps in the direction of women�s education and freedom. Then again, Singer may or may not agree with conditional giving. Conditional giving may be disregard for human life, but it may also make sense and may also be the only way to avoid this criticism from Hardin. In the words of Singer, �We cannot allow millions to die from starvation and disease when there is a reasonable probability that population can be brought under control without such horrors.�(108)
Some philosophers and environmentalists claim that giving to the poor is too high of a standard. They say we cannot achieve something that lofty, that it would be undesirable to achieve something that lofty, or that the goal is so high that no one will try to reach it because of discouragement.(109) Singer denies that people cannot and will not begin to give. He also denies that if we all took a moral stance like he advocates, that life would be missing its spice (such as Susan Wolf argues).(110) According to Singer, these are fallacies.
Another objection to Singer is that we need partiality to kin in order to function in this world. There is nothing wrong with preferring to give your son a bike for his birthday over feeding some distant stranger for a month. Singer agrees that there is room for partiality.(111) The world would be a horrible place if we did not put our children, our family and our close friends before strangers. But there is something wrong with the way in which we give luxury after luxury to our children when there are people in the world without basic necessities. I would suggest that denying your children excessive luxuries could be favoring them, after all. They, in turn, would learn to give, to live simply, and to be happy with little. They would also avoid the traps of a depressed affluent, outlined in the next section.
The last objection to Singer is given by Richard Dawkins. He says, �Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts which simply do not make evolutionary sense.�(112) It�s the whole �live and let die� philosophy. We are a bunch of animals running around not letting natural selection run its course. It�s a parallel to the way that we have tried to preserve forests for years from forest fires. Now, they are aging too long, and when the fire does finally win against us, it obliterates much more forest than it should and is far more devastating than if we had let it run its course years ago. But the questions that I have in response to this objection touch on moral obligation, instead of analogies to forests. We are not just animalistic, but moral as well. It would be ridiculous to deny the fact that, since the beginning of our known history, we have functioned as social, familial creatures who acknowledge responsibility to other humans. Our laws are formed around this idea. Our heroes, our daily lives, our communities all function around ethical duties and rights that accept the sanctity of life, at least to a certain point. There are those that hold this view higher than others, like many religions, but all acknowledge it when they weep at the feeding of a wild alligator on a young child, told on the evening news. We would react very differently to news of a squirrel consumed by a dog. There is something special about humans, and hardly anyone would deny this with her life, even if she would deny it with her mouth.
Robert N. Van Wyk writes from the Kantian ethical standpoint about helping the poor. Kant�s ethics involve imperfect duties and perfect duties. Imperfect duties are those that help others. Perfect duties respect the rights of citizens to use their resources as they would like.(113) Perfect duties are more important than imperfect duties, even though both are binding. When they come into conflict, the perfect duties win out. The vulnerability of others, therefore, forms the base of our positive duties in society.(114) The goal, for Kant, is to see all humans treated as an ends in themselves.(115) Humans are not mere means; they are ends.
Based on this, Van Wyk says that the first duty of wealthy countries to the poor is not to harm them.(116) There is also a duty to make amends for the things that our country has done wrong to others.(117) Because the government is a body, it remains guilty for the sins that it has committed as a body. For the United States, this could mean much money and time spent to rectify not only what has been done in the past to Native Americans and to other colonies, but to poor countries today. We are irresponsible as a country when it comes to economics and the corporate world. Cleaning up our messes would be one enormous project.
Van Wyk poses the question, �May not some people have an agent-specific duty to do more that a fair share (perhaps much more) about some specific matter because of their peculiar awareness of the problem, knowledge of what needs to be done, or a sensitivity to it?�(118) Onora Nell responds to his question, saying, �Modern economic causal chains are so complex that it is likely that only those who are economically isolated and self-sufficient could know that they are part of no such system of activities [causing unjustifiable deaths].�(119) Everyone takes part in the oppression of others in some way, especially in the United States and in other developed nations. They are then, according to Kantian ethics, responsible for responding presently by aiding others to rise up from under the results of that oppression.
Van Wyk also asks if the failure of some people to give increases the duty of others. For one, it is pointless not to �walk across the grass� if everyone else is doing it anyhow.(120) Attempting to do many things completely alone may not be productive at all. Also, no one has the right to give everything, since doing so would make you the means to someone else�s end, which would completely violate the moral system. I can�t help but wonder about Van Wyk�s first reply, however, that it�s pointless not to walk across the grass when no one else is. It seems to me that the object of not walking across the grass could be much more than simply saving that grass at that time. You could not walk across the grass for principle, for example, to make a statement, or for the morality itself. Many religions also contain built-in rewards for doing the right thing. Walking on the grass may be a sin, a bad example, or hypocrisy for you, and would thus not be pointless.
Van Wyk established that you should give, and then he addresses the issues of how. First, there is not only a moral obligation to help others as an individual, but also a duty to put �upward pressure on the prevailing idea of fair share.�(121) This makes sense, since simply �avoiding the grass� yourself doesn�t necessarily help a situation. By challenging others to understand other people as an ends in and of themselves, and as needy �ends� that can be helped by the affluent, you are perpetuating a helping attitude and generations of helping-people.
Van Wyk also answers to Hardin�s objection that helping people only causes a later population crisis. This is, very seriously, one of the most important, if not the most important objection. Helpers must answer the consideration that �the more people who are saved, the more misery there will be in the long run.�(122) Van Wyk is in the camp of people who believe that the world is not in a crisis now (as far as population) and that it will not be in one soon. He maintains that for occasional famine conditions, each country has the resources to feed its own people if they were used for that purpose.(123) The problem is not whether there is food (and other resources), but how we are going to aid the poor in receiving them. It�s about the distribution of wealth. There are other philosophers and environmentalists that share Van Wyk�s optimism. There are also those who emphatically do not. The facts and figures are all over the place, and the interpretations are too complex to be consistent. Unfortunately, there are no statistics and no one statistician that can confirm the issue once and for all. But that does not mean that we should not all seek the truth.
Lastly, Van Wyk argues that many arguments against giving only attack the kind of giving, not whether we should or should not give at all.(124) This is the weakness of a lot of philosophers on the issue. Hardin falls into the trap, as mentioned earlier, when he addresses only a food bank, and no other form of giving. One can�t help but wonder if his argument wouldn�t fall apart if not built around a food bank. According to VanWyk, there are many other arguments that are created the same way. With the right type of giving, we could avoid many of the evils that we are trying to avoid. Then again, Hardin would hold, based on his view of population, that the evils cannot be avoided. Catastrophe looms. I guess we will see.
Radical egalitarianism is another approach to the issue of wealth and poverty. Kai Neilsen is an advocate for radical egalitarianism. Radical egalitarianism is �the view that everyone in an affluent society has an equal right to have his or her basic needs met and that everyone also has an obligation to share equally the necessary burdens of society.�(125) It �would provide everyone equally, as far as possible, with the resources and the social conditions to satisfy their needs as fully as possibly compatible with everyone else�s doing likewise.�(126)
The egalitarian principles of justice are 1) �Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties and opportunities� and 2) After providing for society sustainment, society values, individual entitlements and differing unmanipulated needs, income and wealth is divided equally.(127) Equality, then, is equal resources given over everyone�s life as a whole, qualified by people�s varying needs.(128) It would also recognize talents, therefore avoiding the criticism that too much equality ignores everyone�s differences and different needs.(129) But no matter who you are, there would be stipulations that you must spend a certain amount of your life doing the dirty work.
The distribution would be made according to stringency of needs, strength of unmanipulated preferences, and eventually lottery.(130) Neilsen never goes into the details about the lottery, and it is the most unnerving omission. Why a lottery? If everyone receives equally, what would the lottery be for? For type of car? For size of house? But true distinction among these things would not be radical egalitarianism. I do not know the reason for the lottery or for the gaping hole in Neilsen�s explanation.
The rationale that underlies egalitarianism is to produce circumstances for optimal need-satisfaction for everyone.(131) There is plenty to go around in an affluent society, and everyone would be happiest doing away with competition and the rat-race. However, everyone would be well-provided for so that there was no need that caused unhappiness. In radical egalitarianism, there would be �no more built in obsolescence, no more merely cosmetic changes in consumer durables, no more fashion roulette, no more useless products and the like.�(132) In fact, �it is only in an egalitarian society that full and extensive liberty is possible.�(133)
In order to establish an egalitarian society, there would have to be a lot of changes. And once established, there would have to be an ongoing redistribution of wealth in the direction of the less talented and the less fortunate.(134) Plus, to achieve equality of condition would be, as well, to achieve condition where the necessary burdens of the society are equally shared, where to do so is reasonable, and where each person has an equal voice in deciding what these burdens shall be.�(135) For most countries, then, we are looking at a major reformation of government.
That�s part of what makes one wonder about the high-aiming quality of radical egalitarianism. Egalitarianism claims, �We should, in trying to attain equality of condition, aim at a condition of autonomy for everyone and a condition where everyone alike, to the fullest extent possible, has his or her needs satisfied.(136) From where we stand, it may not look very possible at all. Neilsen recognizes this, and responds, �Radical egalitarian principles can only remain as heuristic ideals against which to measure the distance of our travel in the direction of what would be a perfectly just society.�(137) At least for now. What we�re aiming for is a materially wealthy society with classlessness and statuslessness.(138)
Realistically, in a society as affluent as ours, though, everyone�s needs can not be met.(139) There would have to be a drastic shift in our thinking about needs and luxuries, and the standard of life that we have. Re-orienting ourselves in the direction of progress is the next step for us in the approval of an egalitarian society.
Conversely, Neilsen doesn�t make it clear whether or not egalitarianism would at all benefit anyone besides United States citizens or citizens of other affluent countries. He defined egalitarianism for �everyone in an affluent society,�(140) but never established whether or not we have an obligation to help other countries to become affluent. This could mean that we remain rudely affluent and abuse the rights of others in our own affluence. The reason this is so stems from the fact that he gives no reason why to become radically egalitarian, except for pragmatic reasons. There is no moral obligation that takes you beyond your own immediate society to the rest of the starving world.
Also, he refuses to address the issue of competition properly. He assumes that competition will disappear in a society where goods and jobs are distributed equally, and we will all be that much more content and pleased. However, there are many other things that would remain unequally distributed by nature. There will always be those who are considered to be beautiful, attractive, talented, and those who are kind, outgoing, friendly, ect. There will always be competition because there will be various genes and various family circumstances that form people. Maybe radical egalitarianism is not the utopia it proposes to be.
Based on the positions that I have shared, then, there appears to be an obligation to aid the poor. This duty is strong and binding, based on what we would be sacrificed and based on people as ends and not means. But, there is no duty to completely redistribute wealth, at least based on any foreseeable plan. Plus, aid must be done is such a way that is long-minded, in order to avoid the criticisms that are posed against it.
A Case Study of the United States
David G. Myers is a professor from Hope College who travels around lecturing on his recent book, The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty. He maintains that even though right now in the United States is the best time to be alive technologically and materially, we are unhappy and spiritually deprived.
Since the 1960s, we have more money, more things, more gadgets, further technology and huge advances in medicine. But the divorce rate has doubled, the teen suicide rate has tripled, violence has quadrupled, the prison population has quintupled and non-marital births have sextupled. Statistics also show that while we are freer to marry happily and to marry over and over again, we are less happy with our marriages. Fewer than half of first conceptions are within marriage, which despite that fact that many argue an illegitimate baby can be a loved one, statistically a baby born out of marriage is more prone to abuse and neglect for many reasons. Speaking of abuse and neglect, cases of it have gone up above 3 million per year. In 1976, it was about .7 million. The first depressive episode has dropped into the teens, nervous breakdowns have increased, and national civic health has decreased since the 1960s. Cohabitation and marriage rates are meeting (another acceptable social practice that shows itself statistically negative). Virtually all club memberships that existed from the 1950s have declined rapidly.(141)
Myers� conclusion about all the data is that materialism and individualism have taken over our country. We need to begin to question them. Plus, close relationships and faith need to be re-discovered.(142)
What I am trying to establish here is the fact that affluence does not make you happy. Living a simpler lifestyle is not a sacrifice of the good life. In many cases, in fact, it is the rediscovering or the finding of the good life. For all our wealth, we are still a bunch of meandering, often sad people. Meaning, according to all religious faiths, is not found in possessions. But we in the United States compete like madmen to acquire the most toys, the bigger things, the newest technology and the greatest luxuries and still experience the same pain as those in the rest of the world and then wonder why.
Personal Helps
In this section of the paper I am going to suggest ways that someone could go about helping the poor, if they so choose. The �Personal Helps� section will suggest ways in which you can change your lifestyle to be consistent with a desire to help the poverty-stricken. �The Global Arena� section will suggest ways to get involved that would contribute to major changes on a national or global scale.
First, I have a couple of issues to address. To feed the poor, there are things to consider, some of which I have already addressed in the paper. Additionally, we must consider the amount of aid that would be required, what nutritional requirements are, and how distribution would happen (in a world where realistically you may encounter low cooperation). Of course, population is another major thing to consider.(143)
There is one thing that is clear, especially for all of us in the United States, and that is that it�s possible for us to give much more than we do at present, both on a personal level and as a country.(144) And there is no doubt that your contribution, if it is made wisely, would make a difference. The thing is, you may not always be able to see it.(145) You�re not going to change the world single-handedly.
And critical thinking is needed in deciding what you can personally give. Ron Sider proposes this scenario; �If my present position earns me, say, $40,000 a year, but requires me to spend $5,000 a year on dressing respectably and maintaining a car, I cannot save more people by giving away the car and clothes that will mean taking a job that�earns me only $20,000.�(146) At present, we live in a culture that expects us to have certain luxuries to function within it. There are always counter-culture options, but I would hardly suggest that every considerate person remove herself from mainstream society. The result would be an even more inconsiderate society that did even more damage to other people, other countries and the world. The trick is to live in such a way that you remain in society and still be opposed to parts of it, avoiding what you possibly can of its unfair consumerism.
There are many suggestions about how much should be given. In many cases, the idea is to start with as much as you think you can handle without burning out on the idea, and then increasing your involvement throughout your life. You should also balance what you do, concentrating on both the personal and the global aspects. There are many options, including world nutrition, world health, the environment, agriculture, justice, women�s liberation and other areas, in which to get involved. Doing some of at least a few areas is probably the best giving that you can do. For example, do some lobbying, give some monetary gifts, support an organization and eat less meat.
Singer has suggested that those in affluent societies without too many dependents or special needs should give at least 10%.(147) 10% is a pretty good figure, which just about anyone (especially in an affluent society) could give. Not only that, but if everyone was giving around 10%, it would drastically change the world, and life for millions of people.
Here is a broad, but not complete, list of suggestions to get you started on changes in your personal lifestyle that could make it more simple and more oriented toward giving (many of them suggested by Ron Sider on pp. 197-200).
-Distinguish between necessities and luxuries.
-Stay away from purchases and expenditures that act to elevate or maintain social status, feed your pride, stay in fashion, or �keep up with the Joneses.�
-Distinguish between occasional celebration and normal day-to-day indulgences.
-Resist buying things just because you can afford them.
-Support the political campaigns of candidates who will work for justice of the poor or important environmental issues.
-Question your own lifestyle, not your neighbors.
-Garden.
-Substitute vegetable protein (and beans and nuts) for animal protein.
-Join a food co-op.
-Think about fasting.
-Recognize that it takes grain to make beer and other alcoholic beverages. �The United States annually uses enough grain�5.2 million tons�in the production of alcoholic beverages, enough to feed 26 million people in a country like India.�(148)
-Keep the thermostat at 68 degrees or lower during winter months.
-Support public transportation.
-Use carpools, bicycles, roller-blades, skateboards and your own two feet.
-Make dishwashing a family chore instead of using a dishwasher.
-Use a fan and open or roll down the windows instead of turning on the air-conditioning.
-Criticize and laugh at TV commercials.
-Use postage-paid envelopes of direct-mail advertisers to object to unscrupulous advertising.
-Use scrap paper.
-Use both sides of the paper when you are printing something out. It�s not hard to do with today�s technology.
-Buy a used house.
-Buy durable, quality products when you buy.
-Share or rent appliances, tools, lawnmowers, sports equipment, books, even a car, with others.
-Enjoy what is free.
-Live on a welfare budget for a month.
-Buy low-flow shower heads.
-Insulate the attic/roof of your house.
-Give your children more love and time rather than more things.
-Buy bulk groceries.
-Eat out less, especially at fast-food restaurants.
-Sponsor a child.
-Adopt a child instead of having more of your own.
-Eat more natural food and buy local brands and from local farmers, etc.
-Use candles when low light is needed.
-Use energy-efficient lightbulbs. (They are not that expensive and they last much longer.)
-Turn off the light when you leave the room.
-Put a brick or a milk jug in the toilet tank to conserve water.
-Use a wood-burning stove for heat.
-Buy at flea markets and thrift stores.
-Give unwanted stuff to thrift stores.
-Build to last.
-Repair.
-Make sure you have good tires on your care and buy a car that gets good gas mileage.
-If you can, buy a gas-electric automobile instead of one with an internal combustion engine.
-Take cloth bags to the store to bring groceries home, or take small amounts home without a bag.
The Global Arena
Giving in a global way can be more confusing and complicated than changing your life to be more simple. As mentioned earlier, getting involved in government policy at any level could be a way to do this. So could supporting solid national and global organizations. Living a consistent personal life can be a way for you to be able to speak out about the reasons why you do what you do, but people need to support environmental research or adoption agencies or healthy agriculture in more overt and direct ways, as well.
Norman Borlaug came up with the idea for a world food bank. With a world food bank, each country gives according to its abilities and takes according to its needs.(149) But, as discussed earlier, there are some problems with a world food bank. For one, food is not the only thing that poverty-stricken people need. Second, feeding people only temporarily solves the problem. As the Chinese proverb goes, �Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.� Supplying food to people needs to be accompanied by small loans for farming equipment, education about agricultural technology, government changes that are kinder to the poor and that remove unjust situations, etc. Plus, feeding people by itself does contribute to out-of-control population growth when it is not supported by women�s liberation. There needs to be education and employment that counters the effects of increased medicine and food in a culture. Another thing to consider about a world food bank: it�s being pushed by business since United States business would be majorly boosted by forming and sustainment of the Food Bank.(150) There are so many things to consider is any course of action that would be considered for your support and the support of others. The World Food Bank is just one example of something that looks good at first, but has many facets.
Also, it is good to consider, when assisting other countries, that �Far more difficult than the transfer of wealth from one country to another is the transfer of wisdom between sovereign powers or between generations.�(151) That is one of the reasons that there must be stipulations placed on giving. But, and this is crucial, that does not mean that the United States government is superior, or that we have a better way of doing things. Au contraire, I have discovered during the research for this paper that our government and our businesses have a long and sad (and recent) history of being hurtful to and inconsiderate of other countries, especially the poor in those countries. I was astonished at some of the stories that I read about multi-national corporations and even about our own military. Get educated about what is really going on in your country. Blind patriotism becomes much more difficult.
Another thing: If you believe that government should give, personal giving is part of saying �yes� to that. Why? Despite the rumor that giving personally lets government off the hook, personal giving shows the government that the people want to give. If the citizens neglect giving on a personal level, the government can assume that they do not value giving. Second, the government is the people. The more individuals that value giving, the more likely those people are in power and the more likely they are to be elected to be the peoples� representatives. Lastly, lobbying for fairer trade and better oversees aid is something that you can do on a personal level that makes changes at the government level.(152) Write letters, march, have a peaceable stand-in.
The following is a suggestive list of things that should be done in the global arena, from Ron Sider (pp. 227-230, 258-264) and the lectures of Dr. Squiers:
-Increase rapid economic development in poorer nations.
-Provide more foreign aid and reduce trade barriers in the poorest countries.
-Citizens of industrialized countries should demand a major re-hashing of foreign policy.
-Work hard to strengthen worker�s rights and trade unions.
-Insist aid benefits the poorest of the poor.
-Increase environmental sensitivity and good practices.
-Work hard for women�s education, health care and liberation and allow for birth control options.
-Channel more aid through private, voluntary organizations (PVOs).
-Focus on empowerment.
-Let locals take part in deciding what they need and getting what they need, when they can.
-De-emphasize donor�s political and economic interests.
-Encourage economic sustainability.
-Create wealth with micro-loans.
-Separate developmental and military aid.
-Help countries committed to growth with equality.
-Reduce military aid.
-Give aid that slows population growth.
-Put conditions on aid programs.
-Take specific steps to combat or eliminate disease and malnutrition.
-Demand the development of an independent food supply, the reduction of grain used for animal feed, increased pest control (not in the form of pesticides), and effective population control with food aid.
-Shift fossil fuel use from transportation and space-heating to agricultural use.
-Invest in agricultural research and extension services that focus on tropical, labor-intensive agriculture.
-Focus research on food distribution and storage.
-Support solar power, oppose nuclear power.
-Spend money on education.
Conclusion
This is a lot to process. I have been working on it for months. Originally, I decided to have an open mind and not decide ahead of time what I thought was right. For a long time, I wasn�t sure what my conclusion would be. Rapid population growth is a logically appealing reason to panic about helping others. But I started to not like it when I realized that there are more ways of responsibly giving food aid. I have to admit I don�t like Radical Egalitarianism or Libertarianism as political options, either. Plus, my religious influence and my reverence for the individual life have played major roles in the way that I feel about the issue. For me, now, it is not should I give, but how much, and how so, and how can I keep viewing my own life honestly to keep it consistent with my conclusion.
I think that many of the introductory arguments are right here for you to explore. I have included a �Further Readings� section and a list of organizations because I think you should pursue it further. There is an obligation of the affluent that is irrevocably proven in this paper, although many of you will ignore it, even now. All the statistics, all the quotes, all the arguments and all the hours of my time�all the hungry mouths and the dirty huts and the abused women in the world�demand that you give a significant amount of your time and effort to explore this issue until you come to a conclusion. And that is mine.
Footnotes
1. Ronald J. Sider. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997, 4.
2. Singer, Peter. "Rich and Poor." in Contemporary Moral Problems, 5th ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1985, 274.
3. White, James E. Contemporary Moral Problems, 5th ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1985, 269.
4. Singer, op. cit. 274.
5. Ibid. 274.
6. Myers, David G. The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000, 1-2.
7. Myers, David G. "Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty," lecture, Thursday, March 21.
8. Singer, op. cit. 273.
9. Ibid. 279.
10. White, op. cit. 269.
11. Singer, op. cit. 273.
12. Ibid. 273.
13. Sider, Op. cit. 24.
14. Ibid. 30-31.
15. Ibid. 21.
17. White, op. cit. 270.
18. Sider, op. cit. 9.
19. Ibid. 25.
20. Nielsen, Kai. "Radical Egalitarianism." in Contemporary Moral Problems, 5th ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1985, 319.
21. Sider, op. cit. 14.
22. Ibid. 11.
23. Squiers, Edward. lectures, Environment and Society, Spring semester, 2001.
24. Sider, op. cit. 19.
25. Ibid. 22.
26. Ibid. 23.
27. Squiers, op. cit.
28. Hardin, Garrett. "Living on a Lifeboat." in Contemporary Moral Problems, 5th ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1985, 286.
29. White, op. cit. 269.
30. Sider, op. cit. 3.
31. Singer, op. cit. 272-273.
32. Ibid. 274.
33. Sider, op. cit. 13.
34. Ibid. 13.
35. Ibid. 11.
36. Ibid. 10.
37. Ibid. 8.
38. Ibid. 7.
39. Ibid. 2.
40. Ibid. 1.
41. Ibid. 11.
42. Ibid. 128.
43. Ibid. 123, 125.
44. Garrett, Wilbur E. "Endangered Earth." ed. National Geographic Society, Cartographic Division, 1988.
45. White, op. cit. 270.
46. Squiers, op. cit.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Van Wyk, Robert N. "Perspectives on World Hunger and the Extent of Our Positive Duties," in Contemporary Moral Problems, 5th ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1985, 304.
50. Sider, op. cit. 31.
51. Ibid. 32.
52. Ibid. 31.
53. Ibid. 32.
54. Carlson, Margaret. "Waste Not, Want Not--Not!" in Time, May 21, 2001, Vol. 157, No. 20, 106.
55. Carlson, "Waste Not." 106.
56. Carlson, "Arsenic and Bad Beef," Time, April 16, 2001, Vol. 157, No. 15, 36.
57. Singer, op. cit. 15.
58. Hardin, op. cit. 292.
59. Ibid. 289.
60. Ibid. 287.
61. Ibid. 288.
62. Ibid. 291.
63. Ibid. 291.
64. Ibid. 292-293.
65. Ibid. 287.
66. Ibid. 294.
67. Ibid. 290.
68. Ibid. 293.
69. Ibid. 285.
70. Ibid. 292.
71. Hospers, John. "What Libertarianism Is." in Contemporary Moral Problems, 5th ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1985, 305.
72. Ibid. 313.
73. Ibid. 306.
74. Ibid. 306.
75. Ibid. 307.
76. Ibid. 312.
77. Ibid. 312.
78. Ibid. 312.
79. Ibid. 311-312.
80. Ibid. 310.
81. Ibid. 307.
82. Ibid. 310.
83. Ibid. 305.
84. Ibid. 307.
85. Ibid. 308.
86. Ibid. 307.
87. Ibid. 308.
88. Ibid. 308.
89. Ibid. 307.
90. White, op. cit. 306.
91. Hospers, op. cit. 309.
92. Ibid. 309.
93. Ibid. 309.
94. Life Application Bible: New International Version, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publsihers and Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991, 1904.
95. White, op. cit. 270.
96. Singer, op. cit. 277.
97. Ibid. 275-276.
98. Ibid. 278.
99. Ibid. 279.
100. Ibid. 279.
101. Ibid. 270.
102. Ibid. 284.
103. Ibid. 281.
104. Ibid. 280.
105. Ibid. 281.
106. Ibid. 280.
107. Ibid. 281.
108. Ibid. 282.
109. Ibid. 232.
110. Ibid. 283.
111. Ibid. 284.
112. Ibid. 283.
113. Van Wyk, op. cit. 299.
114. Ibid. 301.
115. Ibid. 301.
116. Ibid. 300.
117. Ibid. 300.
118. Ibid. 303.
119. Ibid. 304.
120. Ibid. 302.
121. Ibid. 303.
122. Ibid. 298.
123. Ibid. 299.
124. Ibid. 298.
125. Neilsen, op. cit. 313.
126. Ibid. 315.
127. Ibid. 318.
128. Ibid. 314.
129. Ibid. 314-315.
130. Ibid. 314.
131. Ibid. 316.
132. Ibid. 320.
133. Ibid. 320.
134. Ibid. 322.
135. Ibid. 314.
136. Ibid. 314.
137. Ibid. 319.
138. Ibid. 314.
139. Ibid. 315.
140. Ibid. 313.
141. Myers, lecture.
142. Ibid.
143. White, op. cit. 270.
144. Singer, op. cit. 283.
145. Ibid. 278.
146. Ibid. 285 (endnotes).
147. Ibid. 285.
148. Sider, op. cit. 199.
149. Hardin, op. cit. 288-289.
150. Ibid. 289.
151. Ibid. 290.
152. Singer, op. cit. 282-283.
Epilogue: A Theology of Obligation of the Affluent
This section of the paper is�as of yet�incomplete. It will be posted at a (much) later date.
Appendix A: Further Reading
Arthur, John. �Rights and Duty to Bring Aid,� World Hunger and Moral Obligation, ed. Aiken, William and LaFollette, Hugh, Prentice-Hall, 1977.
DeWitt, Calvin B. Caring for Creation: Responsible Stewardship of God�s Handiwork, Washington D.C.: The Center for Public Justice, 1998.
Eberstadt, Nick. �Myths of the Food Crisis,� The New York Review of Books, February 19, 1976, pp. 32-37.
Ewals, Ellen Buchman. Recipes for a Small Planet, Ballantine Books, 1983.
Hollister, Benjamin. Shopping for a Better World, The Council on Economic Priorities, 2000.
Lappe, Frances Moore. Diet for a Small Planet, Ballantine Books, 1975.
Lappe, Frances Moore. World Hunger: Twelve Myths, Grove Press, 1986.
Longacre, Doris. More with Less Cookbook, Herald Press, 1976.
Malthus, Thomas. Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, London, 1798.
Meyer, Art and Jocele. Earth-keepers: Environmental Perspectives on Hunger, Poverty and Injustice, Scottsdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1991.
Murdoch, William M. and Oaten, Allen. �Population and Food: Metaphors and the Reality,� Bioscience, September 9, 1975, pp. 561-567.
O�Neill, Onoro. �Ending World Hunger,� Matters of Life and Death, 3rd ed., ed. Regan, Tom, Random House, 1993.
O�Neill, Onoro. Faces of Hunger: An Essay on Poverty, Development and Justice, George Allen and Unwin, 1986.
O�Neill, Onoro. �Lifeboat Earth,� Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 4, no. 3, Spring, 1975.
Rachels, James. �Killing and Starving to Death,� Philosophy 54, no. 208, April 1979, pp. 159-171.
Shannon-Thornberry, Milo. Alternatives Celebrations Catalog. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1982.
Periodicals:
Boycott Quarterly. Center for Economic Democracy. P.O. Box 30727, Seattle, WA 98103-0720. News and list of boycotted products.
Multinational Monitor. 1530 P Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005. Reports on large corporations.
The Other Side. 300 West Apsley Street, Philadelphia, PA 19144.
Transformation: An International Evangelical Dialogue on Mission and Ethics. 6 Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA 19096. [email protected].
U.N. Development Forum. Free from Center for Economic and Social Information, United Nations, New York, NY 10017.
Appendix B: Organizations
Bread for the World (BFW). National Christian citizen�s movement that seeks justice for the world�s hungry.
Earth First!. United States activists. This is not an organization but it is a movement that takes environmental issues very seriously. Slightly controversial. http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/frontcover.cfm
Environmental Defense. Helps restore wildlife. http://www.edf.org
Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA). Christians combining social transformation and evangelism. GreenCross is the only Biblical environmental quarterly.
The Interfaith Centre on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR). Provides information to help people understand the impact of multinational corporations on the poor.
The Nature Conservancy. Involved in politics. http://tnc.org
Natural Resources Defense Council. Involved in lobbying government and in politics. http://www.nrdc.org
Sierra Club. A well-respected lobbying and political group who focus on nature and a variety of other environmental topics. http://www.sierraclub.org
The Wilderness Society. United States group involved in lobbying and promoting forest education. http://www.wilderness.org/index.html
World Wildlife Fund. Nature group. http://www.wwf.org
Appendix C: Scriptures
This section was too extensive to transfer to the website. For a complete listing, write to me at [email protected]. Here is the abbreviated version:
Deuteronomy 15.7-11 �If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbour a wicked though: �the seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,� so that you do not show ill toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the Lord against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore, I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.�
Job 5.15 �He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth;
He saves them from the clutches of the powerful.�
Psalm 41.1 �Blessed is he who has regard for the weak;
the Lord delivers him in times of trouble.�
Psalm 68.5-6 �A Father to the fatherless, a defender of widows,
is God in His holy dwelling.
God sets the lonely in families,
He leads forth the prisoners with singing;
but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land.�
Psalm 109.6-16 �Appoint an evil man to oppose him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.
When he is tired, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.
May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.
May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.
May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven from their ruined homes.
May a creditor seize all he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.
May no one extend kindness to him
or take pity on his fatherless children.
May his descendants be cut off,
their names blotted out from the next generation.
May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord,
may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.
May their sins always remain before the Lord,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
For he never thought of doing a kindness,
but he hounded to death the poor
and the needy and the brokenhearted�.�
Psalm 146.7 �He upholds the cause of the oppressed
and gives food to the hungry.
The Lord sets prisoners free.�
Proverbs 14.31 �He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker,
but whoever is kind to the needy honours God.�
Proverbs 17.5 �He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker;
whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished.�
Proverbs 19.15-17 �Laziness brings on deep sleep,
and the shiftless man goes hungry.
He who obeys instructions guards hi life,
and he who is contemptuous of his ways will die.
He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord,
and he will reward him for what he has done.�
Proverbs 21.13 �If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor,
he too will cry out and not be answered.�
Jeremiah 22.3 �This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
Jeremiah 22.13-19 "�Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice, making his countrymen work for nothing, not paying them for their labor.
He says, `I will build myself a great palace with spacious upper rooms.' So he makes large windows in it, panels it with cedar and decorates it in red.
�Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?� declares the LORD. �But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain, on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion.�
Therefore this is what the LORD says about Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah: �They will not mourn for him: `Alas, my brother! Alas, my sister!' They will not mourn for him: `Alas, my master! Alas, his splendor!' He will have the burial of a donkey�dragged away and thrown outside the gates of Jerusalem.��
Ezekiel 16.49-50 "�`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
Amos 5.10-15 �You hate the one who reproves in court and despise him who tells the truth. You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine. For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts. Therefore the prudent man keeps quiet in such times, for the times are evil. Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is. Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the LORD God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.�
Matthew 11.2-5 �When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, �Are you the One Who is to come, or should we expect someone else?�
Jesus replied, �Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.��
Matthew 25.31-46 "�Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
�Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
�The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
�Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'�
Luke 4.18-19 "�The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.�"
Luke 20-25 �Looking at his disciples, he said: �Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.
�Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
�But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.�
1 Corinthians 1.27-29 �But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.�
Galatians 2.10 �All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.�
James 1.27 �Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.�
James 2.1-7 �My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, �You stand there� or �Sit on the floor by my feet,� have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?�
1 John 3.16-18 �This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.�
Bibliography
Campolo, Tony. �What You Can Do About Poverty.� audiovisual. Compassion International.
Carlson, Margaret. �Arsenic and Bad Beef,� Time, April 16, 2001, Vol. 157, No. 15, p. 36.
Carlson, Margaret. �Waste Not, Want Not�Not!� Time, May 21, 2001, Vol. 157, No. 20, p. 106.
Garrett, Wilbur E. Endangered Earth, ed. National Geographic Society, Cartographic Division, 1988.
*Hardin, Garrett. �Living on a Lifeboat.� American Institute of Biological Sciences, 1974.
*Hospers, John. �What Libertarianism Is.� The Libertarian Alternative, ed. Tibor R. Machan, Chicago: Nelson-Hall Co., 1974, pp. 3-20.
Life Application Bible: New International Version, Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers and Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.
Miller, G. Tyler Jr. Environmental Science, 8th ed., Australia: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning, 2001.
Myers, David G. The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.
Myers, David G. �Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty,� lecture. Thursday, March 21, 2000.
*Neilsen, Kai. �Radical Egalitarianism.� Equality and Liberty, Rowman and Allanheld Publishers, 1985, pp. 283-292, 302-306, 309.
Pojman, Louis P. Classics of Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. p. 996.
Rothrock, P. E. and Reber, R. T. Laboratory Guide for ENS200�Environment and Society, Upland, Indiana: Taylor University, 2000, p. XV.1.
Servant Team Handbook: Word Made Flesh, 5th ed. Wilmore, Kentucky: Word Made Flesh, 2000. p. 25.
Sider, Ronald J. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997.
*Singer, Peter. �Rich and Poor.� Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 218-246.
Squiers, Edward. lectures, �Environment and Society,� Spring semester, 2001.
*Van Wyk, Robert N. �Perspectives on World Hunger and the Extent of Our Positive Duties.� Public Affairs Quarterly, vol. 2 (April 1988), pp. 75-90.
White, James E. Contemporary Moral Problems, 5th ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1985.
* These articles were read in and are sited by page number in the James E. White anthology.
