The 1971 Bengal Famine

Famine in East Bengal (1971)

• In November 1971, people were dying in East Bengal due to lack of food, shelter, and medical care
• Constant poverty, a cyclone, and civil war caused at least nine million people to become refugees
• Richer nations had the capacity to reduce suffering to very small proportions, but necessary decisions were not made
• Most individuals did not donate large sums, contact representatives, or demonstrate to aid refugees
• No government provided sufficient aid for refugees to survive more than a few days
• Britain provided £14,750,000, while its share of the Anglo-French Concorde project exceeded £275,000,000 and was estimated to reach £440,000,000
• The British government valued a supersonic transport more than thirty times as highly as the lives of the nine million refugees
• Australia's aid was less than one-twelfth of the cost of Sydney's new opera house
• Total aid from all sources was about £65,000,000, while the estimated cost to keep refugees alive for one year was £464,000,000
• The World Bank stated India needed a minimum of £300,000,000 in assistance before the end of the year

Moral Implications

• The reaction of relatively affluent countries to situations like Bengal couldn't be justified
• The way moral issues are viewed and the way of life taken for granted in society required alteration
• Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad
• If it's in one's power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it
• "Without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance" means without causing anything comparably bad, doing something wrong, or failing to promote a comparable moral good
• The principle requires preventing what is bad, not promoting what is good, and only when it can be done without sacrificing anything comparably important
• If someone is walking past a shallow pond and sees a child drowning, they ought to wade in and pull the child out even if it means getting muddy
• The stated principle is deceptive and if acted upon, can fundamentally change our lives, society, and world
• The principle ignores proximity or distance and doesn't distinguish between cases where someone is the only person who could do something versus being one among millions

Proximity and Distance

• Refusing to consider proximity and distance isn't justifiable
• Physical nearness may make assistance more likely, but doesn't dictate who one ought to help
• Impartiality, universalizability, or equality means people can’t discriminate against someone merely because they are far away
• Rapid communication and transportation have changed the moral situation

Responsibility

• The fact that there are millions in the same position as I am doesn't make the situation significantly different from being the only person who can prevent something very bad from occurring
• One shouldn't consider pulling a drowning child of the pond if others are equally able to help
• A view that numbers lessen obligation is an ideal excuse for inactivity, but poverty, overpopulation, and pollution are problems in which everyone is almost equally involved
• If everyone in similar circumstances gave £5 to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care, but it is not the case that everyone will give £5
• Giving more than £5 prevents more suffering than if one gave just £5

Giving as Much as Possible

• Everyone in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible, up to the point where giving more would cause serious suffering for oneself and one's dependents
• If everyone does this, there will be more than can be used for the refugees, and some sacrifice will have been unnecessary
• Everyone doing what he really ought to do cannot be worse than everyone doing less than he ought to do, although the result of everyone doing what he reasonably believes he ought to do could be
• Distance from a preventable evil or the number of people in the same situation doesn't lessen obligation to mitigate or prevent that evil

Duty vs. Charity

• Traditional moral categories are upset
• The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn where it is normally drawn
• Giving money to the Bengal Relief Fund is regarded as an act of charity, so it is not wrong to not give
• Instead of buying new clothes to look "well-dressed" it would be better to give money to famine relief
• Giving money is not charitable or generous, it is morally correct

Objections

• A drastic revision of our moral scheme is too drastic
• The way people judge has nothing to do with the validity of the conclusion

Imperatives of Duty

• Imperatives of duty prohibit behavior that is intolerable if men are to live together in society
• It is essential to prevent violations of norms against killing and stealing but helping people outside one's own society is inessential
• The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society
• Preventing the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as upholding property norms within our society

Moral Code

• A basic moral code should not be too far beyond the capacities of the ordinary man, for otherwise there will be a breakdown of compliance
• If people are told to refrain from murder and give everything they don't need to famine relief, they will do neither
• The line between conduct that is required and conduct that is good, although not required

Population Control

• Overseas aid should be a government responsibility
• Giving privately allows the government and non-contributing members of society to escape their responsibilities
• If no one gives voluntarily, a government will assume that its citizens are uninterested in famine relief and would not wish to be forced into giving aid
• Without effective population control, relieving famine merely postpones starvation

Relieving Famine vs. Population Control

• Saving the Bengal refugees now means others will face starvation in a few years' time
• One ought to promote population control (unless one held that all forms of population control were wrong in themselves, or would have significantly bad consequences)
• Those that are working specifically for population control should be supported instead of more orthodox methods of preventing famine

Level of Marginal Utility

• The level of giving should be until one reaches the level of marginal utility, or the level at which, by giving more, one would cause as much suffering to oneself or one's dependents as one would relieve by the gift
• A strong version says to give until material circumstances are near that of a Bengali refugee
• A moderate version says to prevent bad occurrences unless we sacrifice something morally significant
• On the more moderate principle, it may not follow that we ought to reduce ourselves to the level of marginal utility, for one might hold that to reduce oneself and one's family to this level is to cause something significantly bad to happen

Consumer Society

• People spending on trivia rather than giving to famine relief causes a slow down, and maybe total disappearance, of the consumer society
• Giving away forty percent of the Gross National Product would slow down the economy so much that in absolute terms, less would be given than if spending was limited to twenty-five percent
• Philosophers have no special role to play in public affairs
• Public issues depend primarily on an assessment of facts on which philosophers have no special expertise
• Famine has facts about the existence of suffering that are beyond dispute, so therefore an issue on which philosophers can take a position

Action

• It is an issue that faces everyone who has more money than needed or who is in a position to take political action
• Discussion isn't enough
• Take conclusions seriously, therefore, act upon it
• A philosopher will sacrifice some of the benefits of the consumer society to make theory and practice come together