Essay: Utilitarianism and moral obligation

Developed countries should help those that are underdeveloped, however whether they are morally obliged is a matter of debate. Each year, ‘Some??805??million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That’s about one in nine people on earth. Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five – 3.1 million children each year.’ (www.wfp.org). From an individual moral stand point, these numbers are devastating and my wish for the future would be to see a change. In our country, those who suffer from hunger are provided with options which include food stamps, soup kitchens, and WIC amongst others. In third world countries however, there are no such options. Many of us Americans live well beyond what is necessary for survival. We tend to drive cars well over 40 thousand dollars, own properties, and judge ourselves as well as others based on the designer being worn. We don’t often slow down long enough to think about the large population of people who exist beyond our line of sight who cannot even afford the food needed for their families to survive. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, contends ‘It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away’ (Singer 231-232)
However upsetting, the reality is that the question we must ask is; to what extent does an affluent country such as the U.S. owe to a country who has led themselves to where they are, with no fault to us? We should first focus on the needs of our own nation prior to helping any other. A nation is under no moral obligation except to that of the people of its nation.
Utilitarianism argues for the greatest overall amount of happiness. Singer, author of ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’, believe that the suffering and death from starvation, inadequate shelter, and poor health care are bad. Affluent individuals have the means necessary to aid in preventing such suffering, but are too wrapped up in their own individual lives to see that, or to do anything about it. He also continues to argue the immorality which exists amongst those who are affluent and do not feel that they have a duty to aid those that are suffering and dying when they possess the means to do so and believes that this is unjustifiable. ‘[I]f it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it’ (Singer 231). He believes that what is moral, is to sacrifice everything to which we have earned until we are at a point of utility that is level to that of those individuals who are suffering from famine. He claims ‘that we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility ‘ that is the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.This would mean, of course, that one would reduce oneself to very near the material circumstances of a Bengali refugee’ (Singer 241). By doing this, Americans would be reducing themselves to a level of marginal utility simultaneously causing one to reduce their level of happiness as well. For Singer, in order to have an equal distribution of happiness for all individuals around the world, the wealthy should sacrifice the resources they have to a point where they live at a ration level comparable to the those that they are aiding.
America is a nation populated with materialistic people; giving up all unnecessary things such as expensive cars, clothes, etc. would be asking to give up apart of themselves as it has become a way of defining oneself here in the states. Quite frankly, although it is known what exists in other parts of the world, people would prefer to spend their ‘hard earned’ money on these luxury items than to give it up for in an effort to relieve famine. Even if – ‘We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear old clothes, and give money to famine relief.’ (236). This utilitarian perspective can certainly seem absurd to some however, that does not deduce the argument which claims that the use of our wealth on unnecessary things instead of using the means we have to aid in the prevention of death caused by famine, is immoral. ‘Nevertheless, when all considerations of this sort have been taken into account, the conclusion remains: we ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance’ (Singer 238).