A question of morality: Is it justifiable to live in opulence while elsewhere in the world people are?

Question

starving?

Answer 1

The short answer to this is Yes.

The problem with No is How do you get the opulence to the starving?

The systems of forcible shifting of wealth have proved ineffective and corrupt.

The global solutions have their own drawbacks. In the United States, the economic forces that are in the process of leveling the labor market are causing some pain--taking the good paying jobs from middle class America and shifting them to sometimes exploitative employers in other countries.

I think we should pay higher prices for imported commodities. But I am fully aware that this would cause enormous problems in the domestic US economy.

I am not saying throw up our hands in despair. I am saying that this is not a matter of simple minded morality.

Answer 2

If one was similarly destitute would that improve or ameliorate the condition of starving people? No it wouldn't. So the question is whether one who is well off, or even opulent, has some special duty to help those who are starving in the world.

The sheer numbers of starving people would bankrupt even the wealthiest person. (And seeing how Bill Gates and Warren Buffett act charitably may be instructive.) So it requires a national or multi-national response to make a meaningful dent in such a wide-spread problem.

Therefore, it would seem logical to conclude that wealthy people, if they have any duty to act, should act to raise awareness among nations in much the way that Bono has done. That would be the greatest contribution they could make to help feed starving people. Failing that they should donate generously to charitable organizations and encourage others to do the same.

Answer 3

The having of wealth etc. is not in itself a bad thing. I think what you're really going after here is whether or not someone is justified in claiming ownership of something that someone else needs to survive -- eg, if I can really say I have a right to a multi-million dollar income when about half of the human population lives on about $537 per person per year. And this statistic doesn't include those millions who have already died as a result of the massive undernourishment and lack of access to clean drinking water, health services, shelter, sanitation, electricity, education... etc etc... that go with extreme poverty. (these and many more great statistics in Pogge, listed below) Is it fair that a vast inequality of wealth should exist in the world?

I say no. Though world poverty has always existed, the massive inequality of wealth has not. Inequality has actually sky-rocketed in the past 50 years -- this means that the very badly off are still very badly off in absolute terms and even worse off in relative terms. But it also means that industrialized countries can assist developing countries at a small opportunity cost -- the severe relative poverty is thus avoidable. In the sense that someone who Can help someone else at little cost to themselves Ought to help (a tenet which itself is up for grabs in some political quarters, but would spur a much larger question), most of us living in affluent countries ought to feel some moral compulsion to held eradicate world poverty.

But moreover, people aren't just starving in other countries for no reason. Countries become rich and poor in a systematically unjust global economic order biased towards Western/European states. Insofar as affluent states maintain their affluence on the backs of developing countries, those living in and benefitting from those affluent states have a moral obligation to shift the rules. This may mean instituting global taxes (ooh, I can feel the thumbs downs coming) or it may mean pressuring government representatives to enact global policies that help developing countries, or most likely both of the above and more, but something ought to be done on the part of the most affluent to ease the suffering of the world's poor.

Answer 4

People are starving right here in the states every day of the week as well as overseas and our government has a blind eye. It's our duty as human beings to assist others in need. There is nothing wrong with living in opulence. Everyone should be doing the same.

Answer 5

People should always work towards a better tomorrow. It doesn't matter if a person lives half a world away or next door. As capable, intelligent beings, we have a moral obligation to help those that are less fortunate.

Answer 6

I think greater material prosperity demands greater moral responsibility.

Answer 7

it is okay as long as it is shared to those who really need it...

Answer 8

no