Why should I care if a child in Africa is starving?
You should care to make a differenece in the world I guess.
You are a human being capable of sympathy. Were you to honestly examine the plight of an impoverished African child, you would realize that you could just as easily have been that child. This realization is capable of invoking a desire to help or reach out to a less fortunate person, as you would want someone to do the same if you were in their shoes.
But the question is, “why should I care…” And that’s not so easily answered. According to Hume, we can’t really choose what we value or care about–or at least, reason can’t play a role in the formation of our values. We can only reason about means to an end, not about ends in themselves. Reason is the slave of our passions. On that view, you can’t really be convinced to care about anything. All we could say is, “it would be sympathetic to care”, in the hopes that you have a sympathitic quality to begin with.
On Kant’s view it doesn’t matter whether or not you care. In fact, the moral agent is almost better off not “caring” in an emotional sense but rather acting dispassionately according to the moral law, which mandates that we act as though the reason behind our actions were moral reason for universal action. With this in mind, we could say it would be moral to give money to non-profit organizations responsible for feeding African children; because if everyone acted in this way, poverty and starvation would be greatly reduced.
I like both of these theories to an extent, but my own hunch is that there is a spiritual element to moral motivation. That is to say, individuals are most likely to find meaning in life through helping others. I can’t prove this of course because “meaning” could actually mean several different things in this case. But I do know that when I look around me, the happiest people I see are also the most giving and others-centered.
Well seeing as there’s enough food in the world to go around you should care cause you’re indirectly responsible for starving that child, as is virtually every person who reads this post. Including me.
How’s that? I am responsible for another person’s starvation because I am not starving? Am I indirectly responsible for murder because I have not (yet) been?
Why should I be obligated to expend resources to feed a starving person thousands of miles away? Granted, charities exist to pool resources, but does that fact (something I can’t control) make me morally obligated where I would not otherwise be?
Did I just make a post without a single statement?
Well thank you Matt for making my day! Now I feel like a terrible, terrible man! Besides the guilt trip that occurs in us more honorable people, let’s take a look at the question at hand.
Why shout I care if a child in Africa is starving?
We are assuming that I don’t live in Africa, or I might have a more personal connection to the continent. As far as my ancestory goes, I can’t exactly trace my heritage to Africa. I haven’t gone far back enough. So I have no emotional connection, or political connection to that land. Why should I care about a child that isn’t related to me and that is living in a part of the world that I don’t know anybody in? Because I am part of this human race that’s why.
I really shouldn’t care if that child is starving if there are children starving here in America! I’m not even American, so even in my country (Dominican Republic) there are children starving. Even worse, on the island that I was born we share it with Haiti, and I know for a fact there are grown men and women plus their children starving. Why should I care about that child in Africa starving?
I might be taking the Africa in the question literally, so I’ll take it as a variable standing for any place far from what you have a connection with. If so there is no logical reason to care. Unless you have other intentions, like looking good politically, or tax benefits.
Don’t you think it’s a bit misleading to say that we’re all responsible for the death of a starving child? Responsible seems to me a morally charged term, and it implies that if you had somehow acted differently, you could’ve prevented the outcome. I don’t see that we had much choice in being born. Almost sounds like saying we’re all responsible for being sinful because our jackass ancestor ate an apple 6000 years ago.
Okay, maybe it doesn’t sound that bad. 
The trick is to somehow convince the self-interested individual that s/he has a moral obligation toward the less fortunate. And I think the only real way to do that is to appeal to their sense of sympathy and point out that there is meaning to be found in devoting oneself to others.
"You are a human being capable of sympathy. Were you to honestly examine the plight of an impoverished African child, you would realize that you could just as easily have been that child. This realization is capable of invoking a desire to help or reach out to a less fortunate person, as you would want someone to do the same if you were in their shoes. "
nobody owes anything to anybody anywhere at any time. if somone can prove otherwise, or show me where i signed on the dotted line somewhere let me know.
The only reason you have a computer and a net connection is because your country (along with western europe) bled (and is bleeding) the South dry. Hence, since they paid for your affluent existence (relative to theirs - of course, your rulers live rather more affluently) you should feel indebted to them. You are a member of your state, and hence bear responsibility for its actions - unless you are actively fighting against them.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing.
Alternately you could give away all your money and go and live as a monk in Tibet or somewhere.
For interest, here is the Jewish spin on this question…
The concept of tikkun olam or repairing the world through social action, is one of the traditional categories of tzedakah (righteousness and justice). The word “tikkun” first appears in the book of Ecclesiastes (1:5; 7:13; 12:9), where it means “setting straight” or “setting in order.” The most notable early rabbinic source for the phrase tikkun olam is the Aleinu prayer, where the phrase expresses the hope of repairing the world through the establishment of the kingdom of God.
The obligation to repair the world emerges from various Jewish sources. Some, including many of the ancient prophets, see the obligation as originating primarily from the commandment to emulate God’s holiness, for, in their view, God is the model for human righteousness.
Source - jrf.org/adatsmd/tikunola.html
Now, I don’t believe in God, however I do find inspiration in the concept of social justice, in the belief that each man is created in the ‘divine image’ (metaphor for ‘created equally’). The concept of tzedakah (social justice) is an obligation which, according to scripture, I must fulfil. But it is not a case of “do this or I will smite you.” The duty of performing acts of loving kindness becomes a duty when you voluntarily take on board and understand the meaning of compassion, of equality or humanity. The way I see it, once I have understood what it means for me to live an affluent life-style and to also see the homeless people struggling to stay alive every day, I can no longer ignore the obligation I have to rectify the situation. I may falter and fall short sometimes, but I should always challenge myself and try to better the society and world I live in, because I value the sanctity of life and compassion.
- ben
P.S - Isn’t it ironic that people say “become a monk in tibet” when most buddhist monks are currently exiled from Tibet.[/i]
I thought of that as I wrote it; but, being naive in Buddhist terms couldn’t think of anywhere comparably famous/isolated… oh well 
Sorry Frighter! It was more to emphasise the point that Bill should care because every action he takes today that isn’t trying to make his Government act responsibly and stop his country being so greedy then he is indirectly responsible for the death of the child. As am I.
And I’m not running around campaigning.
I think it’s a horrible thought that so many are dying just because most people don’t care, but on the other hand if you think about it the reason why there are so many dying in Africa is cause they can’t keep their dicks in their pants for more than ten minutes. So maybe it’s not your fault Bill and you can sleep well.
Then again, you could easily find out that the only reason that many Africans don’t have good contraception or birth control pracitices is cause that naughty little place in the Rome the Vatican has been running around lying to everyone in Africa for the last 50 years. All because they think every sperm is sacred. And as you’re not trying to fix or stop what that little twit who calls himself God’s ultimate authority on earth has done, and it wouldn’t take much if everyone turned round to the the Pope and said “Oi, no! You little two faced twat, you’re living it up like a king and then telling people in Africa it’s wrong to use contraception and making them poor as hell”, you’re again responsible. Or maybe not. But you should care.
heh i can quite easily not care if i reject the concept of morality which i think your argument requires.
Well, it would work under a utilitarian or a Kantianesque one, and even under most religious moral codes I reckon. If you’re of the self-centred moral club there’s not a lot I can say to convince you to care for any other human being or feel responsible for your actions towards them. But if you are of any sensible moral group then I think the logic is fairly sound.
I think the link which people like Bill don’t realise is that he’s actually only about 4 or 5 ‘levels’ away from direct culpability for the starving African child. When I talk of levels of culpability think of it like this:
-
Person A buys smuggled cigarettes from B.
-
Person B gets his from person C.
-
Person C is in fact from a crime gang responsible for many murders.
So person A is only 2 levels removed of being directly culpable for those murders, it is indirectly his/her fault. He/she creates the market, which creates the conditions for murder. The only difference is is that there are many person As and so somehow all these As seem to think they’re not responsible because they all only create a tiny bit of the demand for the smuggling market. Note that the treasury is not responsible for them in any way even though they’ve created conditions favourable to smuggling, person A is still acting immorally by supporting criminal gangs and thus murder.
A similar thing happens in companies which are unethical, the people who make the economic decisions which are ethically unsound don’t feel responsible for them as much as they would if they were directly being so callous, hence why companies tend to be very callous when it comes to any kind of ethics, the people involved feel somehow its not their fault, but the “company’s”, even though they are the company.
If you remove morality for the equation and strictly have a self-centered view of the situation, you still should care. Why? Because, helping others less fortunate is in your best interest, plus you can gain sastisfaction from Helping others. even the most self centered individual will realize that having others help them in times of need is in good for you. helping or even caring about people in need is benefical to you because if you land in a bad position in life, your help when you felt no direct connect, can bring forth help when you are in need (of any kind) from someone who feels no direct connection. So, for the self centered, this would seem as it is a situation where you could benefit in many ways, even if it is just for peace of mind.
Logo wrote:
Hey Logo, are you from New York? Because I love that last line, it hit the spot!
------------
Concerning this child in Africa. It is messed up, and we do owe them for what was done in the past to that continent. But shouldn’t we first care in educating our children at home (wherever home may be) so that they don’t become homeless in the future. So that they don’t grow up greedy and make more children starve. I’m talking about cutting the cycle for the future, instead of just putting duct tape on it.
A lot of the world problems, in my humble opinion, are being “fixed” by just masking it. You can’t help the homeless by just feeding them. Ask the tough questions. Why are they homeless and how could it have been pervented? Why is this child crying on TV? What were the social conditions that allowed this to happen. I believe education is the key. You just can’t give money around and expect things to change.
I reason those of us, who inherited unique abilities and talents and were able to develop them successfully, have the duty to help the needy to alleviate their suffering. The best help is to teach them to help themselves… The question then remains: How much of a human being are you? 
jjj
We’re not all to blame for children starving in Africa. Choosing not to eat is as foolish as choosing to eat too much. Anerexics, people fasting for religious reasons and homeless people don’t eat much. How are they as much to blame for starvation as someone who eats far more than is neccessary?