Comparison of Peter Singer and Andrew Kuper’s Ethical Theories of Poverty Alleviation
Peter Singer and Andrew Kuper are two philosophers engaged in thought that deal in poverty in our world and what obligations individuals and states have in addressing the issue. Kuper focuses on society’s role, while Singer views the individual as necessary to bring about alleviation from the sufferings of poverty. Both develop a clear argument, but Singer deals more in the vein of detached logic while Kuper is searching for a practical framework to work under that will lead to tangible change.
Singer is aware that this view will not be a popular one and will be one that people will immediately raises objections to because immediately after making his point he qualifies it with several defenses as to what he foresees will be people’s argument with it. He sees the world as having developed into a “global village” and as a result arguments that me have worked in the past when people literally were unaware of the plight of the poor, or unable to reach them, are no longer logically congruent. Because of aid organizations that are stationed in countries of famine that can not only advise on situations occurring on the ground but can vicariously deploy relief funds that those far away could direct towards those on the brink of risking mortality because of starvation, he sees there being “no possible justification for discriminating on geographical grounds” (Singer, 232).
He preempts any argument that would point to the fact that most people in the world according to his system of morality are leading immoral lives by saying that this fact can only serve to make one feel personally less guilty about what he would term as their immorality, but he stays stringent in his argument stating that “this can make no real difference to our moral obligations” (Singer, 233). He relates it back to the anecdote of the pond, that if one saw a child drowning in a pond and there were others surrounding it doing nothing to save it that it would not make any difference to the brazen lack of morality that all doing nothing would be partaking in.
Singer sees no difference between duty and charity. Singer sees the greatest tradegy being that people use their money to purchase unnecessary things such as new cloths instead of using it to save people’s lives. In this situation, it would be hard to argue against Singer without wondering if you were not arguing for the sake of justifying your own lifestyle and materialism. Duty is what one must do morally. Charity is giving due out of goodwill. Singer sees as duty what most people see as charity. As a result he makes some drastic suggestions as to how people should restructure their lives and giving. Certainly, many people give when disasters strike, such as the Tsunami of Southeast Asia and hurricanes or earthquakes. One question is what role governments should play and what role individuals should play in dealing with these instances. Singer believes that the duty lies with the individual. As will be developed later on, Kuper believes the opposite, that governments and policies should be able to address such issues.
Singer is consistent in his terms and the consequence of them. However, his argument that distance does not matter at all seems a bit questionable.
There is the fact that we live in a consumer based culture that feeds a consumer based economy which serves its own needs while rarely doing much to help those who are destitute and dying through no fault of their own. He gets blunter as he continues, making it abundantly clear that this is not something that is good to do but wrong not to do, but wrong not to do. “We ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so” (Singer, 235). He does not see this giving as charity, but as duty. This has, as Singer says, “radical implications” since we live in both a world of affluence AND destitution.
Singer muses about why so few people are of agreement with his conclusions, which he feels, must be accepted if his premises cannot be shown unsound. Most societies set out a code of what people should not do, rather than what one ought to do. Singer does a good job at anticipating the arguments against his conclusion, namely that if more individuals did more government would do less. Passing to buck to a person’s government is not something he feels gets anyone off the hook in his or her moral responsibilities. Singer thinks that we should be doing both.
Philosopher Andrew Kuper agrees with the conclusion of Singer that “Nothing is more politically important to think about, and act upon, than global poverty relief” (Kuper, 155). He however, has a very different viewpoint as to how society should go about achieving that. The problem is enormous, with 30,000 children dying daily of starvation and preventable diseases. Kuper lists the standard “industry numbers” on poverty, that some 1.2 billion people are living on less than one dollar a day and 2.4 billion lack basic sanitation (Kuper, 155). These numbers, a significant proportion of the earth’s population can lead to one feeling despair and impotent in the face of being able to do anything.
The bodies in place the citizens think are in place to assist are doing very little. The United Nations for example only proportions .13 of its budget on poverty assistance. Kuper admires the work of Singer, calling his commitment to social activism, “rare among philosophers” (Kuper, 156). He does however disagree with his approach which he feels is “lacking as a theoretical orientation for action” (Kuper, 156). Singer’s approach is focuses on the individual, wanting each person to adopt a practical code of ethics, whereas Kuper feels the solution must be political. Kuper thinks the individualist approach of Singer is even “dangerous” since it leads to a neglect of the structures of governance. There are two ways of looking at this disagreement between both philosophers point of view, and it is a classic chicken and egg issue. Does the morality of the state have an effect on the morality of the individual, or does the morality of the individual affect the morality of the state? Singer in his argument thinks that both individual efforts based on practical ethics and massive deployment of aid money from states can happen simultaneously, so he might not disagree with Kuper as much as Kuper disagrees with him.
Singer, in stating that the average American family should be giving around $30,000 in aid money realizes that most people will be shocked at such a conclusion. Kuper is not necessarily arguing against the premises of Singers argument, but the practicality of its application. Afterall, how many American families are realistically going to dramatically increase there given solely based on logical argument?
Singer though, even if his argument is difficult to palate in terms of making lifestyle changes is at least consistent throughout, uses logical terms and remains true to the belief that if his premises are true than the conclusions are true in starkly mathematical terms in the vein of 1 + 1 = 2.
The main disagreement with Singer and Kuper is how to actually make a difference in the world regarding poverty. He wonders what would happen if Singer spent all of his time saving children instead of lecturing at Princeton? How did he even have time to develop his theory of practical ethics when there were children drowning (starving in the world) and he was busy writing instead of saving them? This line of reason starts to make Singer’s conclusion seem a bit absurd. That perhaps pristine logic is not quite what the world needs for a tangible difference.
Kuper points out that Singer’s argument “denies that (a) shared citizenship and (b) distance per se make any difference to the nature and extent of our obligations to help others. Though Kuper thinks that Singer denies a system of justice, it is merely that Singer focuses just on the individual. It also denies that obligations rest not just with world citizenship, but also with communities and kin, making distance at least somewhat important. Singer and Kuper both seek the same end, but arrive at it from difference means. Singer’s philosophy is abstract and detached while Kuper wants to know what theory, regardless of logical consistency, is most practical in brining about actual change.
