Ritchey Paper 2

Connor Ritchey

Nov 20th, 2019

PHIL 371

Global Poverty and The Way to Combat It

Roughly two-fifths of the world’s population lives in poverty and over a billion have no

access to clean drinking water or suffer from hunger and malnutrition. With the wage gap

becoming wider, the need to find an optimal solution to solve this grave issue is becoming more

and more necessary. The national governments and for/non-profit organizations have instituted

their unique ways to combat this issue, however, as discovered by Carl Knight, the correct way

to solve this on a personal level is a lot murkier due to the varying viewpoints on distributive

justice and utilitarianism. As explained further in this paper, the traditional approach to

distributive justice, explained by Peter Singer, may not be the most accurate.

I had chosen the article A Pluralistic Approach to Global Poverty written by Carl Knight,

which addresses the concerns involving Peter Singer’s 1972 article “Famine, affluence, and

morality” that details utilitarianism, distribution of wealth, and the “Prevention Principle”.

According to Peter Singer, everyone can agree that “suffering and death from lack of food,

shelter, and medical care are bad” (Knight 715). He then goes on to detail the “Prevention

Principle”, which involves two versions. The first and stronger principle states “if it is in our

power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable

moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”; the second, weaker, version details “if it is in our

power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything morally

significant, we ought, morally, do it” (Knight 715). Singer then gives an example to appeal to

non-utilitarian’s, stating that “it should be clear that we would have to give away enough to

1
Ritchey Paper 2

ensure that the consumer society, dependent as it is on people spending on trivia rather than

giving to famine relief, would slow down” (Knight 716). According to this theory, one should

always give to poverty relief rather than spending money on family, which has its own

shortcomings. This is the first main point that Knight refutes, as he believes that there is no

proven reason that holding “trivia” is morally insignificant. A child will be happy after receiving

said trivia (toy). This is morally significant, since the happiness is based off the child receiving

said toy. Knight then goes on to explain that even adults have their own consumerist choices of

happiness. It is widely known, however, that the moral significance of receiving a trivia gets

outweighed by a child being well-fed, as opposed to starving. That past example is an instance

of Singer’s 1st part of the Prevention Principle, however individuals are not forced to make that

decision, as stated in his 2nd, weaker, part of the principle. According to Carl Knight, “Such

rights might be filled out in such a way that, say, one is permitted to spend one’s money exactly

as one wishes, the utilitarian route Singer wants to reach appears surer than most” (Knight 716).

In other words, it may be unrealistic to assume that everyone is going to follow both stances of

the Prevention Principle. This belief stated by Carl Knight, in my opinion, is accurate in terms of

today’s society. We see each day, time and time again, celebrities to normal people, placing

themselves and their wants before others who may be in more need of help.

Even though Peter Singer’s views on utilitarianism holds a bad rep due to its unrealistic

expectations, he is still very clear on his viewpoint on world poverty: “Affluent individuals must

alleviate it as a matter of morality; affluent governments must alleviate it as a matter of social

justice” (Knight 717). Knight then addresses that in the twenty-first century, a different and

more accurate kind of distributive justice has emerged. Rawlsian Justice, in short, states that

income and wealth of the less fortunate and needy are maximized. Knight believes that this,

2
Ritchey Paper 2

“possibly, may be another, better way to improving the economic standing of the global poor”

(Knight 717).

This detailed academic journal ultimately states non-controversial facts regarding

utilitarianism and distributive justice, however I do not believe his viewpoint on the first

Prevention Principle. Knight thinks “[that] it is not an ideal basis on which to apply the strong

principle” (Knight 717). Out of both prevention principles, the one that can be applied to current

day, in my eyes, would be the first principle. Unlike the second, which is forcing the individual

to prevent something very bad from happening, regardless of location, etc., the first principle

only wants one to not consider what he/she is sacrificing, since that is morally the right thing to

do. For Knight to think that the first prevention principle is unnecessary, solely based off human

nature and greed, is unfound in my eyes.

The need to find a solution for the ever-expanding world poverty levels is at an all-time

high. Through analysis of Peter Singer’s article “Famine, affluence, and morality”, which

addresses the need for utilitarianism to solve global poverty, Carl Knight can non-bialy interpret

utilitarianism and the prevention principle specifically involving today’s society. Using multiple

examples and interpretation, Knight concludes that the traditional approach to distributive justice

may not be the most accurate.

Knight, C. (2008, October 1). A Pluralistic Approach to Global Poverty. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40212499?seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents.