 Today, we will talk about very influential article of Peter Singer, Famine Affluence and Morality. Now, many of, when both of you or when you have been doing philosophy, there has been this urge that, well, where does it connect to the world out there? So, particularly in ethics, when we have been talking, we have been talking about a lot of moral theories, but where does this connect to the world out there? And this essay is a crucial example of how a philosophers work in the philosophical domain has influenced the world out there. So, it was a very crucial article and it did get in a lot of funding and resources. And unlike the criticism that, well, many, many philosophical articles end up in their journals without moving anything in the world. So, the context of this article is, well, it was written in 1971. This there is a situation, there is famine in East Bengal or now Bangladesh. There was this formation of Bangladesh independence from Pakistan, constant poverty, cyclone and civil war. So, a sudden high intensity demand on a fledgling government with very limited resources and located in one of the resource-staffed regions of the world. In no way, the author understands the situation to be fatalistic. And so, what do others do? What is the crucial point? What others do? So, now, before we take on, since we have had a preliminary reading of this article, let us come up with what has been your, how have, how moved have you been with this piece? What difference has it, what do you think it is, how, what has been the, it is a jolt to the world community, to individuals everywhere to start donating for this situation that we have in 1971. How would you react to it if this is a situation then and there? How would you react reading this article if you were in 1971? Okay. Right, okay. Let us take this situation one-on-one. Would you like to add something to this? Okay, not now. Now, what, a few crucial questions that are being raised by Singer is that, what do the affluent, if at all, owe anything to the lesser affluent or tragedy struck? Now, as philosophy students, what would you think that, is this a question that is relevant or when asked to a philosopher or is this just a clarion call or what do the affluent owe to the lesser affluent or the tragedy struck? Okay, interesting. Now, which is not raised by Singer in this article, but if you would like to read into it that, well, Singer takes a starting point. The starting point being that, well, there is tragedy in a particular part of the world and there is affluence in a particular part of the world and that the affluent, therefore, what is the rationale that goes behind them to donate to the ones who are tragedy struck. Now, interesting. Now, if you trace the genealogy or the history of affluence, one very dominant worldview is that, well, the resources in the world are finite and that is being, just distributed in a skewed manner and therefore, it is just a matter of earlier utilization of ancestors that certain resources have accumulated in one part of the world and thereby causing a scarcity on the other part of the world. Now, to this worldview, there is also a retort that, well, affluence is also a result of human effort and where effort has been more and where thinking has been cherished and ways of affluence have been realized, there has simply been much more affluence than in regions which have not exhibited these traits in societies. How would you react to that? Okay, but let us tackle one question by one by one, the first question that, well, your claim is that, well, fundamental question being is, what to the rich or to the poor? Okay, let us have that, so that focus remains on that. The first question that I would read in as what Singer asks that, well, what to the rich or to the poor? Now, one view is that, well, this notion of O is actually a notion of repayment because somehow the affluence has accumulated by starving certain regions of the world and therefore, it is not a moral owing but actually a almost legal owing because we, because the affluent have cornered in more of the resources than the less affluent. But what about, this is one way of perceiving the world that where resources are finite, right, because this is in fact, almost the border of on economic thinking that there are two ways of perceiving the economy, one is that the world has a fixed resource economy and it is only a game of distributing the resources from one region to the other. The other way is that resources or goods can be generated, so it is not that the net wealth of the world remains the same and it is redistributed but anyone exhibiting entrepreneurship and knowledge skills and traits that are valued generates resources and therefore, generates affluence. So, we have had one view, would you agree with it or you? But why should one or the affluent think of the welfare of the society? What is the basis of that responsibility because one view is that the basis of that responsibility is because the affluence has come from starved regions but what if we hold the world view that well everyone has generated their own affluence roughly and therefore, there is no legal owing in that manner, what is the basis of the moral owing? But what is the basis of that should because what do you hold that the world order has fixed in resources which is distributed or we generate our own resources. Or that you have become rich at the expense of somebody else. True, true but what first question we are dealing with is that how did I or how did a nation or a culture or a country become wealthy? They did become by stealing or starving another region of the world or wealth can be created independent of a relative poverty. The second one, interesting we have two parallel views here that of course, we need to engage with each of these views because this will determine whether this rich owing to the poor is either a legal owing or a moral owing. If you take a look at the slide right now that it basically describes the situation in the that particular time which was that at an individual level people have not responded in the magnitude required, there were some exceptions of course. At the governmental level assistance has not come to the massive levels required for sustained assistance and a comparison of the expenditure of the governments and that is taken as the indicator of the reflection about their policies. So, if you remember the example of the Concord that how the British government spends more on the development of a supersonic jet than the alleviation of suffering. So, these were the relative standards given, but the general questions that are raised as I see is that well there is almost a perpetual situation of the world where there is suffering and affluence coexisting with not enough transfer of resources taking place. So, there is suffering and there is affluence both existing at the same time in the same world, but enough transfer of resources not taking place. That is the prick that has made Singer write almost an article in a very aggressive tone. So, and targeted not just to philosophical audience, but to the world at large. The relatively well resourced prioritized the utilization of their resources and Singer finds fault with this prioritization both at the individual and the collective level. So, those who are relatively well resourced they find a problem, let us have the slide on yes, they have the, they find fault with this prioritization both at the. Yes, but when they are talking about the situation of the world. So, as a world order, as a world community, as a citizen of the world you have pockets of affluence, pockets of scarcity and perhaps the situation has not changed since time of recorded history. There has always been a almost an extreme existing. So, this difference or even for prosperous first world country there is also a food starved third world country. So, that is what Singer wants us to reflect that why is it not triggering the kind of reaction it should trigger, what he expects to trigger that well, there is affluence and you value your supersonic jet more than the elevation of poverty. That is where the question arises. So, well first question what do the rich owe to the poor, we can find well two strains of answers that one that they legally owe and another is that they owe on human grounds or because they share common humanity and it is because our fundamental nature to be touched by the suffering of the other by catharsis or by whatever means that we ought to be concerned because if you notice well Singer starts his article by saying that suffering is an evil and those who disagree with it he does not even engage with that. So, in fact he takes a very rigid applied or in the world tone in this article he does not enter or he closes the possibility of discussing about any esoterical or metaphysical claims about why other world or how starving or death is not really an evil and there have been many philosophical views about it this clearly rules it out of this zone of the article. So, when he talks about this fundamental assumption that I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from the lack of food shelter and medical care are bad. So, this is I think most people will agree and he shall he does not bring this into a contextual view, but as a philosophy students what do you think if you want to context to contest the claim over here what would you like to possible reason at all what would you read into it yes, but we are we are just questioning this assumption that for the sake of questioning that this what reach on the first line of the paragraph starting in this page is that I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from the lack of food shelter and medical care are bad well about the generic assumption that suffering from death suffering and death from lack of food shelter and medical care are bad is that a bad that is a moral claim that this is these are bad yes they are obligated, I am asking that if somebody wants to question this assumption or what is how do you debate this assumption or how do you problematize it what is he denying. When he is talking about food shelter and medical care are bad, in the feed so they can out move we cannot say that these things are bad because. He is saying that suffering and death are bad. So, because death is like it is ultimately you cannot say and the suffering is depend upon the individual how they are also it is depend upon like basically suffering it is depend upon like man made resource where is the death there is. Okay. When you are talking about the food you are talking about a family that is my personal food because I mean I am talking about the family food that means we are making the food. Here. What is per se wrong with suffering and death coming from this well okay let me just briefly put that what he is perhaps what I can read that he is denying is that we he engages in no talk about fatalism that when fatalism claims that well and esoteric theory is that well we all go through necessary because all religions this is I would read a very anti-religious view in this claim that he is making that well all suffering that we encounter are not sufferings that we deserve and death is not a liberation from that suffering. So, he keeps the entire box of such esoteric metaphysical or religious claims out of the situation. He takes life as finite and he takes human actions that can make a difference. So, I would read into this as a complete denial of fatalism that if there is suffering in death from the lack food and shelter and medical care they are bad because they are preventable and they are not the result of my previous or earlier actions and they are not definitely not a test for me to overcome. The standpoint the singer mentions yes yes it is to be welcomed I am just saying what by refusing to argue which line does he stop arguing. So, when he because he does not if you read he does not deny that there will be any problems with such this assumption but he does not find it worthwhile. So, I would want to bring to light what are these possible problems. So, perhaps most of us would not agree with it but there can be exceptions and these are the kind of exceptions that come out to be. Now, if it is two ways of looking at it first is the suffering a cause of a prior the effect of a prior cause one and second is human free will granted. So, because if human free will is granted then one can try to alleviate sufferings but on the other hand if human free will is not granted then it is it is almost a completely fatalistic order where suffering is inevitable and it is the result of prior actions. I can see a very strong critique of Indian religious views that occur which say that well whatever is happening is a result of your past actions. So, one is critiquing that and second tragedy or famine, affluence and natural disasters and man made problems why do they occur in certain part of the world and not in the other part of the world. Why is the basis of affluence is not chance the basis of affluence is effort. So, it is a very positivistic reading of the world order that well implicitly if I read into it is that the world order the way it is the different the division between affluence and poverty is not random. It is a result of human action and thereof. So, just as fatalism there is bad fate that it can be good fate. So, it is either way. So, what the resources have implicitly or the prosperous have implicitly comes from their own efforts and the tragedies that are faced are also to be sorted by the world community at large. So, let us yeah. Do we have a plan where to reconcile individual views because there is a lot of resources like that. So, you say that affluence is a result of human action. So, then you have the second view that affluence is a person. Yes. There are other resources that you can do. Then the second view when we say that the resource of the problem is a person and we said natural resources most of the natural resources. One being natural resources and what would you like to term the other? Wealth. Wealth, okay. Well, I do not of course, singer does not make any exclusive claim about it, but if I am to read into it, well he is perhaps not making such a clear distinction. He is in fact finding one leading to the other. So, perhaps natural resources and wealth are tied up, but then perhaps that will, that is from my reading of Peter's or singer's other works. From this particular work, I think we cannot draw any claim about what he is trying to put forth. Okay. But of course, there are exceptions where affluence has been attained over places and cultures which are very scarcely blessed with natural resources. So, that can of course, be seen that these continuous, but in certain cases and certain places blessed with natural resources are still not affluent enough. But anyway, I think for the purpose of this article, because he makes no implicit claim about it in this article, we can let it be for the time being and get into what debatable claims or what problematic claims are made in this article. So, if you take a look at this slide about assumptions. Well, the first one we just talked about and they seem to be very intuitively binding claims, but let us see how and why these are binding and why do they not translate into action. So, if you look at the second assumption that is listed, that well if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it. This is a clearly a absolutely a utilitarian claim that well, if we can prevent something in fact, prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. So, there is a kind of a moral calculus here. I give you some time to go through it. Yes, also a moral version of his thesis, yes. Can we proceed? Right. So, well what is the problem here? The problem when you see a singer makes this claim that well, this seems to be very intuitively obvious and probably most of us would agree to it, but why this supposedly obvious claim does not bring an action. We talk about that well, if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally to do it. So, this is the moral calculus that the utilitarian talks about it. So, talk about that if you weigh the positive good, that the goods that come out of a decision and if it outweighs the suffering or evil or that comes out of it, then you choose an action that brings about overall happiness over suffering. So, that is the generic principle of which this is a version where it talks about preventing something bad from happening instead of generating happiness. So, when it says that well, when a singer says that well, to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything. So, this is where the moral calculus is. So, because when you are transferring resources, there is a scarcity that you are voluntarily embracing and that anything should be of comparable moral importance and therefore, we ought morally to do it. This is perhaps the principle that he talks about initially. Now, would we find any, this principle again appeals, but it implies great changes if applied. So, what are these changes? First, these changes are changes of proximity, that the factor of proximity that if suffering or takes place both physically close to me or to a person closely related to me, then it should not make a difference in my judgment. So, my proximity to a person or the suffering, whether it is spatial proximity or relational proximity, will not make a difference on my effort or on an individuals or an agent's effort to alleviate that suffering. Now, let us look at this first little consequence of a very, almost an obvious principle that proximity is irrelevant. How irrelevant is proximity? Now, there are various examples if you look into the world out there. Let us say beggars. Now, if a beggar comes to you and asks for arms, depending on the state of the beggar he gets or does not get the arms or however whatever you decide to do. Now, you know that there is similar scarcity and problems in other parts of the world or other parts of the place you live in, but perhaps most of us do not make an active effort to contribute. Now, if we agree, let us have the slide please. If we agree at the principle that Singer is putting forth, why do we find that in application, proximity should not matter, but perhaps does matter. Let us have views on this. Proximity for anything that how much you would support for suffering family member and to a stranger. Is there some error in the principle or is there something which the hidden component of the principle that is not palatable with the way human beings work? I am neutral in this case. I think both are necessary because I am very close with the second thing when we are talking about the natural disaster or something. I am giving because I am talking about that there is not necessary proximity, I think it is not applicable because when we are talking about a country, generally if India is connected with some other country, something is happening in that country, then it is trying to get two circumstances. So, in this case, it would be the outside. So, perhaps human decision making does factor in proximity, but should it? Yes, but that is the whole question that well in the same city or town you have very affluent pockets and we have very poor pockets. So, a penury and affluence simultaneously existing and no matter how much distance there be. So, when you talk about neutrality, what singer is asking is that there should be absolute neutrality. So, you are neutral to the sufferings of not only people proximate or places proximate to you, but also places which are far away, both spatially and relationally to you. So, why does the common attitude that well a suffering in my region, I will contribute more and a suffering in somewhere else in the world perhaps I will contribute less, if not nothing. So, would singer call that moral or immoral? He would call it immoral, yes. Yes, go ahead. Who is proximate to us? If we help someone who is proximate to us, it will be done. So, our action towards that we do not take particular means we invest ourselves through our actions. So, in fact I see this as a singer's paradigmatic following of the Kantian paradigm that where neutrality even to the point that you hold a known person at par with an unknown person and you just value the suffering that is to be elevated and not who is suffering. So, that... That is correct. That is an interesting observation brought about that well. The principal may appeal to us rationally, but being psychological animals proximate cannot be underestimated. So, we are bound to have neutrality is almost a mechanistic notion whereas we are psychological beings and proximity does matter to us. In fact, if you look at the entire domain of seeking charity and campaigning for charity, we try to put hard-hitting images that will elicit some response from the viewer. It is whereas text describing the detail of the situation will not elicit that kind of response. So, we put in hard-hitting images that will bring about or elicit in that some kind of a psychological connect with the potential donor to bring out donation. So, here singer is not taking into account the psychological characters or tendencies. Okay, interesting. That is a very...in fact, a powerful trend in explaining human behavior by the biology we are based on. So, even evolutionary ethics for that matter, survival ethics all tend to seek a biological explanation for our behavior, but that is interesting. For years spent together, will that not nullify our neutrality for a person with whom we have spent years together or known for a long time versus a person whom we do not know? So, rationally we want to be people who alleviate suffering depending on the quantum of suffering, but psychologically we value or we are more concerned or hurt by the suffering of proximate people than people whom we are not proximate with. An essential factor that perhaps singer is not, of course may be aware of, but is missing out in what is the claim of this article. But perhaps singer's answer to this would be that this is exactly what we need to overcome if we want to have a better world order. So, anything more on proximity that you would like to add? I think it was because on the second wave, which tells us that if we see it also as a real obligation, we should be able to do that. That yes, that if we owe our affluence to others and therefore we owe support in the times of need, then it is connected or not. And that further nullifies, makes it almost a legal requirement. Yes, that it needs not even go to the level of the moral call, but it goes to the level of a simple quid pro quo legal call. That well, it is like an employer looking into the health benefits of an employee. Would you like to see that as? It is not simply legal. It also has a pervading moral basis, but it is not restricted to being a moral call only. It is to be legal also. The world has one community. Interesting because this also raises the whole question of why do governments give AIDS? Why do world bodies give AIDS? So, there is so much of world aid taking place. Now, there have been various readings of why should any country or government or collective aid another. So, it can be both at the level of nations. It can be at the level of societies, at families, at individuals, at country levels. Why does one assist the other? So, does its call come from we being the citizens of common world or perhaps it comes from common human nature or it comes from a sense of owing. In fact, not just society. Well, he would be calling humanity per se, because if you look at the second little implication that comes from Singer's principle that the actions assumed or actual of others similarly placed ought not to make a difference to one's actions. So, that is again a call for impersonal or neutrality. That well if there is a problem and the example that he talks about that suppose there is a child drowning in a pond. Now, if you are the only one passing through, that makes does that increase your obligation when compared to their people, various people passing by the pond. You have the same. But again, what would you opine upon it? That according to Singer that this others similarly placed should not affect your decision making. So, as a modern behavioral economist would try to bring forth that what you choose is essentially influenced by what others in your by how many people are there around you and how many people what choices they make and that crucially influences you. So, Singer's demand that well there is something that we negate the others around us in making a choice. Is it almost an inhuman claim? So, later I can think because we need to talk about the second fact that it is different from the time or it is up to you to decide with the winner. So, the first fact is the most necessary or it is an essential factor that you have to take that decision in your own way because we have. So, continue factor should not play a role. So, the very claim that he makes is that numbers lessen obligation. I think that is how he puts it over here that do numbers actually lessen obligation or whatever problem there is.