What Are We To Do About Global Poverty?
When most people think about poverty, they immediately think of the starving children that live in third world countries but they do not realize that it is even bigger than that. Nearly half of our world’s population, which is more than 3 billion people, is surviving on less than $2.50 a day- while those living in extreme poverty are living off of $1.25 per day. Poverty is not only about food we must take into account how it affects the community, school systems, health care, nutrition, and overall quality of life. It is estimated that it would take $60 billion annually to end extreme global poverty-, which is LESS than ¼ of the income of the top 100 richest billionaires. To many, that does not seem like much when taken into account those funds can put an end to global poverty. So why is it not happening? I find that the answer is because not everyone approaches the issues of global poverty with the same mindset. Not everyone feels as if it is their duty to help those in need, there are different forms of thinking when it comes to global ethics issues such as poverty. These forms of thinking come from the utilitarian, contractarian, and deontological style. Personally, I believe that the best method of dealing with the current global poverty crisis would be the deontology method.
The basic definition of utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. The goal is to maximize happiness. For example, if a utilitarian had to choose between saving 1 life vs. 5 lives, they would choose the 5 lives because they are minimizing the loss of life. We find that most people think this way; we must go with the option that has the outcome of the greatest good for the greatest number. Given this general principle, it is argues that we in fact have an obligation to aid the global poor. Every day we earn money that could be used to prevent great suffering and every day we could choose to donate part of these earnings, or part of our savings or capital. As we know, Peter Singer practices utilitarianism. He believes that global poverty confronts us with life-or-death situations and does so on a daily basis, making it a central moral issue of our times. At the end of the day, their premise when it comes to foreign aid and global poverty is that if it is within your power to prevent/stop something bad from happening and you are not sacrificing anything of equal or greater value you must do so and by doing things such as donating to aid agencies you help prevent illness, death, etc.
The contractarian standpoint claims that moral norms derive their normative force from the idea of contract or mutual agreement. It tells us that moral acts are those that we would all agree to if we were unbiased, and that moral rules themselves are a sort of a contract, and therefore only people who understand and agree to the terms of the contract are bound by it. The theory stems from the political form of contractarianism and the principle of social contract where people essentially give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive, or jointly preserve, social order. Within this concept it is felt that societies that are well ordered have a duty to assist those that are burdened, referring to those that are in unfavorable conditions preventing them from having a decent political and social regime. It is believed that money is not always necessary to help; we must first think which mechanisms will have the strongest effect on change in political culture and institutions. They also stress how important the policies that emphasize human rights are. In regards to foreign aid those who practice contractarianism aim to equalize levels of wealth in the societies or allow for continuous economic growth. Once they feel as if a burdened society has constructed a just political system assistance is no longer required even if this means the country stays relatively poor.
With deontology they maintain that actions are not justified by their consequences, rather, factors other than good outcomes determine the “rightness” of actions. Deontologism argues that it is the “means that are important.” These are duty-based ethics so someone who follows deontology is likely to also follow the “golden rule”, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. With that said human rights are very important to a deontologist, they want to find the core problem (if possible) within an institution and correct it. The extent of their obligation goes al the way until the responsibility for the harm has been corrected and then adequately compensated.
Since foreign aid is the biggest attempt to help the world and those living through poverty and disaster it is very important that we get it right. Although none of these are absolutely perfect, I believe that deontology would give the best results in aiding global poverty. In a way this seems like a happy medium. It doesn’t have the extent of utilitarianism where they basically do everything for the country but it is also not as cold as contractarianism whereas they will leave a country relatively poor as long as their political system is just. This is the best option because it gives those who are being aided a chance to thrive and grow on their own once the extent of the foreign aid has been reached. I feel as if finding the root of the problem and looking at the factors that cause it can be very effective in long-term solutions. It is necessary to have both elements of utilitarianism and contractarianism, it has the compassion of a utilitarianist in the way that does find it necessary to compensate those who are suffering as well as the reform element of a contractarianist that can help the nation grow. One of the main problems with utilitarianism is that I feel as if it is only a short-term solution and it is not truly helping these people in the end, it is only making them dependent on other. To some it may also seem as if it is asking too much for an individual to give constantly since there will always be more need to relieve suffering, and there is always going to be need since they are not implementing any reform and are just giving, it is like a never ending cycle. As for contractarianism they have faults in the thinking that the extent of their duty is only until they are enabled to develop a just political system even if it leaves them still poor in the end. An issue like global poverty should not be all about politics which is what they make it out to be but I can appreciate the fact that they do try to help these societies while giving them the ability to still be somewhat in control of their own society. Deontology allows and gives communities suffering from poverty a chance to improve their quality of life long after the extent of aid is over while helping them overcome at the same time.
If we are to ever find the true solution to poverty, people will look back at our time and they will be dumbfounded by the moral paralysis of those who had the resources to help. Even more shocking will be the fact that so many theories failed to accord global poverty a central place in their accounts of ethics
your essay in here…