Western Sudan
I am not convinced that Peter Singer is a particularly good philosopher. I agree with Colin McGinn, again from that wonderful New Yorker article, that he is more of a politician than a philosopher. I think that he only appeals to what is popular rather than what is truly well thought out. He does actually recommend, for example, that we should give so much of our money away to the Third World that we are very nearly as badly off as they are. (See Section 2 of the article.) This is, incidentally, also another example of his own hypocrisy, because he has never done anything to impoverish himself. The point is, however, that this view is in the mainstream of the leftist rhetoric about the evil that we have so much while others have so little. It also does not take into account what we did to earn what we have. Nor does it take into account the actual reason that the other countries in question have so little. Nothing whatsoever, for example, is mentioned of their lack of economic freedom or political stability.
In this respect, Dan Roentsch has a very interesting argument in "The Disingenuous Ethics". Singer's argument does not even hold up under the scrutiny of a well-thought-out consequentialism. It does not matter whether you give all your money to the Third World or burn it up in a bonfire. In the long run, the relevant consequences will be exactly the same. No amount of money thrown at famine relief will stop why these people are living in poverty.
I actually want to examine this issue in detail. Singer donates twenty percent of his salary--though again, much less than he can afford--to Oxfam and UNICEF. The first article on Oxfam's website is about their humanitarian relief operations in Western Sudan. The top-ranked news article about Western Sudan states that "at least two million people had been forced off their land due to conflict". What conflict? The top-ranking news article for "'Western Sudan' conflict" states that the conflict is "Africa's longest-running civil war", a "21-year-old war between the Islamic government and the mainly Christian and animist rebels". The top-ranked news article for "Sudan 'civil war'" states that the fighting has "raged intermittently for nearly 50 years". The Kenyan government has hosted over a year of negotiations between the Sudanese government and the rebels for power-sharing arrangements. The US put the two sides under intense pressure to come to the negotiations in the first place. "Sudan's government and rebels signed key agreements yesterday, resolving the last remaining issues needed to end Africa's longest-running conflict." A peaceful conclusion "would hand President George W. Bush a rare foreign policy boost in a Muslim country."
So I say to you, which will help these people more? All the generosity and humanitarianism of Oxfam and other relief agencies around the world? Or the self-interest of George "Dubya" Bush in actually helping to bring about some kind of political stability in this region? You see, I think it's a lot more complicated than Singer's simple moral judgments.
In this respect, Dan Roentsch has a very interesting argument in "The Disingenuous Ethics". Singer's argument does not even hold up under the scrutiny of a well-thought-out consequentialism. It does not matter whether you give all your money to the Third World or burn it up in a bonfire. In the long run, the relevant consequences will be exactly the same. No amount of money thrown at famine relief will stop why these people are living in poverty.
I actually want to examine this issue in detail. Singer donates twenty percent of his salary--though again, much less than he can afford--to Oxfam and UNICEF. The first article on Oxfam's website is about their humanitarian relief operations in Western Sudan. The top-ranked news article about Western Sudan states that "at least two million people had been forced off their land due to conflict". What conflict? The top-ranking news article for "'Western Sudan' conflict" states that the conflict is "Africa's longest-running civil war", a "21-year-old war between the Islamic government and the mainly Christian and animist rebels". The top-ranked news article for "Sudan 'civil war'" states that the fighting has "raged intermittently for nearly 50 years". The Kenyan government has hosted over a year of negotiations between the Sudanese government and the rebels for power-sharing arrangements. The US put the two sides under intense pressure to come to the negotiations in the first place. "Sudan's government and rebels signed key agreements yesterday, resolving the last remaining issues needed to end Africa's longest-running conflict." A peaceful conclusion "would hand President George W. Bush a rare foreign policy boost in a Muslim country."
So I say to you, which will help these people more? All the generosity and humanitarianism of Oxfam and other relief agencies around the world? Or the self-interest of George "Dubya" Bush in actually helping to bring about some kind of political stability in this region? You see, I think it's a lot more complicated than Singer's simple moral judgments.
Comments