SEATTLE — The ethics of aid and global poverty has been explored countless times before. Often, these explorations on the philosophical side of global poverty and humanitarian aid discuss ethics through a utilitarianism—that one should work to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people—and specifically Peter Singer’s effective altruism.

Peter Singer’s Case for the Ethics of Aid

Certainly, Singer’s 1972 essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is extremely influential in the discourse surrounding the ethics of global poverty. He maintains the importance—duty, in fact—of charity through the notion that people, if it is in their power, must prevent bad things from happening so long as it does not allow something “comparably bad to happen.” It is our duty, then, to help people, should we not be harmed, or others harmed, in the process of that help.

Singer also maintains that the duty one has to prevent bad things from happening has no barrier defined by physical distance. This was a radical move, and one which cemented the importance of global humanitarian aid: it is the duty of those who can to prevent calamities and provide aid to those who need it, regardless of geographical separation.

Singer wrote in his essay, “It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, 10,000 miles away.” This statement, bolstering the need for global charity, stands as a major ethical motive—whether it is consciously thought of or not—for humanitarianism.

Aid as Charity Versus Aid as Repayment of Debts

Yet, Singer hardly had the last say on the ethics of aid, and his argument has faced some criticism over the years. One critique in particular, however, rests on the idea that Singer’s effective altruism belies the historical systems of colonialism and exploitation.

If, as Dr. Richard Drayton argues in an article for The Guardian, the legacies of Western colonialism and resource extraction serve as an underlying force guiding the prosperity of some nations and the destitution of others, then an ethical system ought to take that into account.

This is the point Bruce Robbins makes in his recent book, The Beneficiary. In the chapter “The Starving Child,” he notes that Singer’s effective altruism simply takes human crises at face value, without addressing the underlying causes of these crises. Robbins specifically gestures to the crisis that inspires “Famine, Affluence and Morality”—the civil war and resultant 1971 famine in Bengal. Singer presents the case that his audience has an ethical duty to aid the people suffering from the famine simply because people are suffering. This case, however, removes that audience’s accountability. Robbins notes in his book that the United States provided “military aid and diplomatic cover” to the belligerent side during the civil war.

Thus, the history of Western imperialism and colonialism creates a need for a different sort of ethics. Singer separates the historical precedent from its consequence, creating something less strong than an indebtedness. Singer’s duty to others exists regardless of history or underlying mechanisms.

The title of Robbins’ book refers to the relationship Western powers have with their former colonies: they are the beneficiaries. The consequences of having benefits at home, however, is often poverty abroad.

To critique Singer for ignoring the socio-political realities of the global reality to create an ethical system that might otherwise provide a more pronounced duty to the impoverished does not necessarily mean rejecting aid. Certainly, there are critiques that do reject Singer’s concept of aid, yet those rely on the idea that the socio-political realities are soon to be changed, which is not entirely practical given the situation today.

One way to move forward with Singer and his critics is to retain Singer’s commitment to the ethics of aid, yet maintain an awareness of the historical relationships which brought about such need. Perhaps might be worth it to change our vocabulary as well: what was once charity, which connotes a voluntary service, may better be understood as debt.

– William Wilcox

Photo: Flickr