World Hunger And Utilitarianism

Many philosophers and individuals have argued that we are obligated to try to eliminate world hunger. But often these philosophers and individuals provide different reasons as to why we are obligated to reduce world hunger. On the one hand we have individuals like Peter Singer who take the utilitarian point of view. Utilitarianism argues that our actions should increase the overall happiness in the world. On the other hand we have people like Onora O’Neill who sides with the Kantian point of view. The Kantian point of view argues that we should eliminate world hunger because the nature of this act is good, hence it makes it right. Although, both sides arrive at the same conclusion, that doesn’t mean that we should accept that both ways of thinking

But another very large portion of individuals like Peter Singer who also use the utilitarian way of thinking arrive at the conclusion that we should alleviate world hunger because it would increase the aggregate happiness in the world(866). Peter Singer uses the drowning child analogy to justify his position. He argues that if a person sees a child that’s drawing, and that person is capable of saving the child, that person is obligated to do so(866). In this situation the outcome is that the child is obviously happy that someone saved him, the person who saved the child is slightly less happy because his clothes were ruined, but nevertheless both are alive and well. Singer goes on to explain that we should apply this sort of thinking when it comes to world hunger, He says that if our situation allows us to help those in need, we are obligated to do so.(866) Singer and other individuals with the same understanding of the situation are basing their argument on the principle of utility, which essentially says that our actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 752). The principle of utility is the only thing that matters when it comes to Utilitarianism, an action is right if it ends

Kantians believe that we should avoid treating others as mere means.(877) In other words we should not make false promises, physically force a person to do what we want, use threats, or take advantage of someone’s desperate situation and make unjust offers.(877-878) These are examples of treating people as mere means because these people will not have the opportunity to make a reasonable choice for themselves. Either because they don’t have the complete information, their wellbeing is on the line, or simply because there is no just offer on the table. We are also to treat others as an end in themselves(878), meaning that we have to respect their autonomy, and their freedom to make choices for themselves. But according to O’Neil it’s not enough to treat others as an end in themselves. In her duty of beneficence she argues that we cannot treat others as end in themselves if they have limited rationality or autonomy (878-879). She derives her idea from Kant’s idea of imperfect duty which aims to promote helping others to reach their potential.(). Therefor based on these principles it makes sense for us to help reduce world famine, because the people affected by this issues are very venerable, and their autonomy is undermined. The only way to ensure that they are treated as rational human beings is if we helped them. It’s important to