Applied Ethics: Poverty

Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts

Relative/Absolute poverty

he three most common searches within this site are (in order) 'social exclusion', 'relative poverty' and 'absolute poverty'. This page discusses what these terms mean and how they relate to each other.

Poverty versus social exclusion

Prior to the 1997 Labour Government, the term 'social exclusion' was rarely, if ever, used when discussing social policy in the UK. Rather, the word 'poverty' was generally used as an all-encompassing term to describe situations where people lack many of the opportunities that are available to the average citizen. Whilst low income was central to this notion, it also covered other factors relating to severe and chronic disadvantage.

However, some people used the word 'poverty' in the narrower sense of simply low income. It was to ensure that the wider notion - that disadvantage can cover a wider range of factors than 'just' low income - was not lost, that the Government started using the term 'social exclusion'.

In other words: the wider notion of 'poverty' = the narrower notion + 'social exclusion'.

One of the advantages of the term 'social exclusion' is that it is reasonably self-explanatory, clearly relating to the alienation or disenfranchisement of certain people within society. Its use therefore helpfully highlights the importance of such alienation and the need to understand the full complexities of its causes and effects.

However, one of the consequences of introducing the term 'social exclusion' was that it led some people to assume that low income and alienation were essentially unconnected and that each could (and should) be considered separately when developing policy. This, in turn, led to the tendency in some circles to downgrade the importance of addressing issues of low income, on the grounds that its effect was simply to limit the material goods that a household could acquire rather than having any wider social impact.

In reaction to all this, this website generally uses the term 'poverty and social exclusion' throughout, without differentiating between them. This usage has several advantages, namely:

It emphasises that the issue of concern is both low income and the other factors relating to severe and chronic disadvantage, and that these are closely connected.
Its overall scope is the same whether the word 'poverty' is used in its wide or narrow sense.

top

Relative versus absolute poverty

For the sake of simplicity, the discussion below relates to income poverty only (i.e. the narrow sense of the word 'poverty' above). It would, however, equally apply to the wider notion.

Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is the same in all countries and which does not change over time. An income-related example would be living on less than $X per day.

Relative poverty refers to a standard which is defined in terms of the society in which an individual lives and which therefore differs between countries and over time. An income-related example would be living on less than X% of average UK income.

Absolute poverty and relative poverty are both valid concepts. The concept of absolute poverty is that there are minimum standards below which no one anywhere in the world should ever fall. The concept of relative poverty is that, in a rich country such as the UK, there are higher minimum standards below which no one should fall, and that these standards should rise if and as the country becomes richer.

Absolute poverty

Clearly, where both absolute and relative poverty are prevalent, it is absolute poverty which is (by far) the more serious issue. This is the case in much of the third world, where the focus is therefore on fixed income thresholds (typically $1 or $2 a day, on the grounds that this is the minimum needed for mere survival). But in a UK setting, such thresholds have no import: no one in the UK lives on incomes anywhere near this low.

So, logically, either one concludes that there is no absolute poverty in the UK or that a much higher threshold of absolute poverty than $1 or $2 per day should be used.

The view that there is no absolute poverty in the UK is a perfectly valid position to take.

The view that there should be an absolute poverty threshold but that it should be much higher than $1 or $2 per day begs the question about how such a threshold should be defined and on what basis.

In the UK, the main efforts to define such thresholds have been undertaken under the general heading of 'minimum income standards', which basically estimate the level of income required to purchase a given basket of goods and services. But the key point about such initiatives is that the basket of goods and services is defined according to the norms of the day and, as such, are inherently relative rather than absolute in nature. So, for example, there would be many items in the 'today's basket' that would not have been in the basket 50 years ago. In other words, 'minimum income standards' relate to relative poverty rather than to absolute poverty.
In recent years, the Government has begun to describe households with less than half 1 the average 1997 household income (after adjusting for inflation) as being in 'absolute poverty'. This is, however, purely a political device - the only relevance of 1997 is that it is when the current Government came into power. 2 That is not to say that the statistic is unimportant, simply that it should not be described as 'absolute poverty'.

To summarise: there is no obvious way of defining an absolute poverty threshold except the $1 or $2 a day thresholds defined on the grounds that this is the minimum needed for mere survival. But in a UK setting, such thresholds have no import: no one in the UK lives on incomes anywhere near this low.

Relative poverty

The view that relative poverty is not important is a perfectly valid position to take - it is just not the view that the authors of this website, along with most other researchers, the EU, the UK government, and politicians of all hues across the political spectrum take. So, for example, the government's target of halving child poverty by 2010 is defined in terms of relative poverty.

The reason that we believe that relative poverty is important is because we believe that no one should live with "resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities." 3 In other words, we believe that, in a rich country such as the UK, there should be certain minimum standards below which no one should fall. 4 And, as society becomes richer, so norms change and the levels of income and resources that are considered to be adequate rises. Unless the poorest can keep up with growth in average incomes, they will progressively become more excluded from the opportunities that the rest of society enjoys. If substantial numbers of people do fall below such minimum standards then, not only are they excluded from ordinary living patterns, but it demeans the rest of us and reduces overall social cohesion in our society. It is also needless.

If one accepts that relative poverty is important in principle, then the obvious issue arises of what thresholds to use and on what basis. This is discussed in detail on the page on choices of low-income threshold. Our basic answer is that it does not matter, so long as the thresholds are defined in relation to contemporary average (median) income and are for households rather than individuals. It is for this reason that the main indicators on this website use a variety of thresholds, so that a fuller picture of trends can be developed. But, for reasons of consistency and clarity, there has to be a 'headline' threshold and, for this, we use the same threshold as both the UK government and the EU, namely a household income of less than 60% of contemporary median household income.

Some people criticise the concept of relative poverty on the grounds that it is to do with 'inequality' rather than 'poverty'. At one level, this is simply an issue of semantics - because of the potential confusion between 'absolute poverty in the third world' and 'relative poverty in the UK', we are also not very comfortable with the phrase 'relative poverty' and this is why we use the more descriptive 'in low-income households' throughout this website.

But at another level, the criticism is simply confused: whilst 'inequality' is about differences in income across the whole of the income distribution, 'relative poverty' is about the number of people who have incomes a long way below those of people in the middle of the income distribution. These two things are very different. For example, whilst there will inevitably always be inequality, there is no logical or arithmetic reason why there should always be people in relative poverty.

To summarise: whether one believes that relative poverty is important or not is a matter of opinion, but all political parties in the UK believe that it is important and so do we. There are well-established ways of measuring the extent of relative poverty and it is these methods to which this website adheres.

top

1. More precisely, less than 60% of median, which is a similar amount of money. ↩

2. Indeed, we once heard a government minister argue that the poverty threshold should be fixed at the beginning of each term of office and then suddenly jump at the start of the next term of office before being fixed again. In that way, every government could say that it was reducing poverty even though levels of poverty never actually fell! ↩

3. The definition of relative poverty as articulated by Professor Peter Townsend, the leading authority of the last fifty years on UK poverty. ↩

4. Webster's dictionary definition of the word 'poverty' is "the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions". ↩

Source:

Singer - and rejoinders

People starve, suffer, and die because of political and economic arrangements. To address the causes of such exclusion, we need empirically grounded theories that enable us to go behind appearances. Singer dispenses with this need, asserting simply that his "solution" to global poverty (widespread charity) is established by "the facts." He provides no way to determine which facts matter and how. That is, he gives us no theoretical tools for understanding the nature and causes of poverty, or for developing multiple methods to tackle it. Again, we should not be against charity in all instances. Rather, drawing on more reliable development theory allows us to recognize that charity is not a cure-all. Chronic reliance on this one strategy can harm the poor. We must not depend on mere (irregular) assistance, where the rich are exhorted to dispense aid beneficently; rather, we must carefully reform relations and systems of cooperation, such that they benefit the poor on an ongoing basis. Only a wider range of institutional reforms and political strategies, derived from this cooperative approach, can generate sustained inclusion in governance and the global economy.
Download PDF File (PDF, 26.13 K)

Islam and poverty - 1

Introduction:

Islam is the religion and way of life that was revealed to humanity by our creator, Allah (swt) (click for definition). Since Allah (swt) is the one who created the heavens and the earth, and out of His unlimited mercy to mankind, He also revealed to us a way of life and a religion, Islam, that give us peace and happiness in our lives here on earth and in the afterlife. Islam was revealed as a practical religion that covers all aspects of our lives, and it is intended to be implemented in our lives. It brings peace and justice to earth, after all, who is more just and wise than Allah (swt), the creator of the heavens and the earth, the most knowledgeable?

As such, when implemented honestly and correctly, Islam provides solutions to all problems that are faced by humanity. One of the most widespread and dangerous problems faced by humanity is that of poverty, hunger and starvation. There is nothing more horrifying than the realization that as we live our happy lives here, millions of our fellow human beings live in hunger and face starvation. The majority of the world population today lives in poverty. It is clear that the world system we have set up today is unjust and inhumane. Otherwise, how can we allow this situation to continue with less than 10% of the world population controlling over 90% of the wealth and resources on this earth?

Islam, revealed to humanity over 1400 years ago, came with the most just and easy solution to the problem of poverty, hunger and starvation in this world. If Islam is implemented in the world today, the problem of poverty, hunger and starvation would be completely eliminated within a year. Islam, revealed to us by Allah (swt), the most knowledgeable, wise and just, solves the problem of poverty and hunger through several methods:

The Obligatory Zakat:

Islam makes it obligatory on every Muslim to pay a certain "tax", called Zakat, on their accumulated wealth. The money collected from this Zakat is to be distributed among the poor and needy.

The Arabic word "Zakat" means both 'purification' and 'growth'. One of the most important principles of Islam is that all things belong to Allah (swt), and that wealth is therefore held by human beings in trust. Our wealth is purified by setting aside a proportion for those in need, and, like the pruning of plants, this cutting back balances and encourages new growth in our wealth.

Zakat is due on accumulated wealth that has been in the possession of a person for at least one year. There are rules on how to pay Zakat on each type of possessions, such as gold, animals, crops, shares and so on. A certain percentage of each type of these possessions is to be paid as Zakat. Note that the Zakat is taken from excess wealth that a person is accumulating and has had in their possession for over a year. It is not paid on income. Therefore, people whose save nothing after covering their expenses with their income do not pay Zakat, and in fact may be eligible to receive Zakat money from others if their income does not cover all their needs.

The Zakat is to be distributed among people of the following categories, depending on need:

1) The Destitute: Those who don't have material possessions nor nor means of livelihood.
2) The Poor: Those with insufficient means of livelihood to meet basic needs.
3) The Indebted: Those who are in debt and have difficulty repaying it.
4) Stranded Traveller: The traveller who does not have enough money to complete their journey.
5) To Free Slaves: Zakat money is to be used to purchase slaves and free them. 6) New Muslims: Those who are new to Islam and require help to integrate themselves into the Muslims community.
7) In the Path of Allah: Zakat money can also be spent in the path of Allah. This can include many things, basically any project that helps Muslims or Islamic causes.
8) Zakat Workers: Those whose job it is to collect and re-distribute Zakat money get their salary from the Zakat money.

How Can Zakat Eliminate Poverty and Starvation?

If Islam was implemented in the world today, starvation would be eliminated from the planet within the first year. The Zakat due on agricultural products ranges from 5% to 10% of the produce. There is also Zakat due on various types of animals such as sheep, cows and camels. Imagine if 5%-10% of all agricultural production in the world, plus the required amounts on animals are distributed among the hungry and starving people of this world. The problem would be solved immedeatly. In the system we have today, some nations intentionally spoil a part of their agricultural production in order to maintain high prices for their produce. Can you see the difference between the system driven by human greed and the Islam which was imposed by Allah (swt), the most gracious and most merciful?

In addition, Islam can solve the problem of poverty. Consider the Zakat due on money. Zakat is due at 2.5% on money that has been in one's possession for over a year. Now consider this simple fact: Forbes Magazine reported that in 2004 there were 587 billionaires worldwide, with a combined net worth of $1.9 trillion dollars. If in 2004 these 587 richest people in the world paid zakat, we would have had $47.5 billion dollars distributed among the poor.

This calculation has just considered less than 600 individuals on this earth. What about if everyone contributed to a global Zakat fund in the same way? The total world GDP (summation of gross domestic product of all countries in the world) was estimated in 1999 to be $27,357.9 billion dollars. The 2.5% Zakat on this would amount to $683.95 billion dollars annually. These are just ball park figures to give the reader an idea of how much money Zakat can generate.

This Zakat money should not only be distributed for immedeate relief to the poor. It can also be given in the form of small business loans. For example, poor farmers can be given loans or even grants from this Zakat money to enable them to purchase the equipment and materials they need to lift them out of poverty. The same can be done for small business owners, or for the poor to set up small workshops or factories to lift them out of poverty once and for all. Within a few years, poverty would be eliminated or at least greatly reduced.

Optional Charity:

As discussed earlier, the obligatory Zakat imposed by Islam can easily solve the problems of poverty and starvation in the world. However, in addition to that, Islam greatly encourages Muslims to give extra charity. For example, the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) once said that the person who sleeps full while his neighbour sleeps hungry is not a true believer. Islam also always encourages charity in all situations. For example, for the persons who are not able to fast in Ramadan, they are required to feed some poor people for each day they do not fast. And there are many such examples.

Islam and Poverty - 2

Allah (swt) said: "And be steadfast in prayer and regular in charity" (Holy Qur'an, Chapter 2, verse 110).

Allah (swt) said addressing the messenger of Allah, Mohammad (pbuh): "Of their goods take alms (charity), so that you might purify and sanctify them, and pray on their behalf" (Holy Qur'an, Chapter 9, verse 103).

When the messenger of Allah, Mohammad (pbuh), sent one of his companions to call the people of Yemen to Islam, he asked him to tell them the basics of Islam, among which was: "... and tell them that Allah has made obligatory on them a charity that is taken from their rich and given to their poor..." (Reported by Bukhari and Muslim).

Allah (swt) said: "So he who gives (in charity) and fears (Allah), and (in all sincerity) testifies to the Best, We will indeed make smooth for him the path to Bliss. But he who is a greedy miser and thinks himself self-sufficient, And gives the lie to the Best, We will indeed make smooth for him the Path to Misery; Nor will his wealth profit him when he falls headlong (into the hell fire)." (Holy Qur'an, Chapter 92, verses 5-11).

Allah (swt) said: "By no means shall you attain righteousness unless ye give (freely) of that which you love; and whatever you give, Allah knows it well." (Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, verse 92).

Allah (swt) said: "O ye who believe! Cancel not your charity by reminders of your generosity or by injury, like those who spend their substance to be seen of men, but believe neither in Allah nor in the Last Day. They are in Parable like a hard barren rock, on which is a little soil; on it falls heavy rain, which leaves it (just) a bare stone. They will be able to do nothing with aught they have earned. And Allah guideth not those who reject Faith." (Holy Qur'an, Chapter 2, verse 264).

Poverty

Singer Solution to World Poverty - 1

In the Brazilian film "Central Station," Dora is a retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sitting at the station writing letters for illiterate people. Suddenly she has an opportunity to pocket $1,000. All she has to do is persuade a homeless 9-year-old boy to follow her to an address she has been given. (She is told he will be adopted by wealthy foreigners.) She delivers the boy, gets the money, spends some of it on a television set and settles down to enjoy her new acquisition. Her neighbor spoils the fun, however, by telling her that the boy was too old to be adopted —he will be killed and his organs sold for transplantation. Perhaps Dora knew this all along, but after her neighbor's plain speaking, she spends a troubled night. In the morning Dora resolves to take the boy back.

Suppose Dora had told her neighbor that it is a tough world, other people have nice new TV's too, and if selling the kid is the only way she can get one, well, he was only a street kid. She would then have become, in the eyes of the audience, a monster. She redeems herself only by being prepared to bear considerable risks to save the boy.

At the end of the movie, in cinemas in the affluent nations of the world, people who would have been quick to condemn Dora if she had not rescued the boy go home to places far more comfortable than her apartment. In fact, the average family in the United States spends almost one-third of its income on things that are no more necessary to them than Dora's new TV was to her. Going out to nice restaurants, buying new clothes because the old ones are no longer stylish, vacationing at beach resorts —so much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health. Donated to one of a number of charitable agencies, that money could mean the difference between life and death for children in need.

All of which raises a question: In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one —knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?

Of course, there are several differences between the two situations that could support different moral judgments about them. For one thing, to be able to consign a child to death when he is standing right in front of you takes a chilling kind of heartlessness; it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help children you will never meet. Yet for a utilitarian philosopher like myself —that is, one who judges whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences— if the upshot of the American's failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies on the streets of a Brazilian city, then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers. But one doesn't need to embrace my utilitarian ethic to see that, at the very least, there is a troubling incongruity in being so quick to condemn Dora for taking the child to the organ peddlers while, at the same time, not regarding the American consumer's behavior as raising a serious moral issue.

In his 1996 book, Living High and Letting Die, the New York University philosopher Peter Unger presented an ingenious series of imaginary examples designed to probe our intuitions about whether it is wrong to live well without giving substantial amounts of money to help people who are hungry, malnourished or dying from easily treatable illnesses like diarrhea. Here's my paraphrase of one of these examples:

Bob is close to retirement. He has invested most of his savings in a very rare and valuable old car, a Bugatti, which he has not been able to insure. The Bugatti is his pride and joy. In addition to the pleasure he gets from driving and caring for his car, Bob knows that its rising market value means that he will always be able to sell it and live comfortably after retirement. One day when Bob is out for a drive, he parks the Bugatti near the end of a railway siding and goes for a walk up the track. As he does so, he sees that a runaway train, with no one aboard, is running down the railway track. Looking farther down the track, he sees the small figure of a child very likely to be killed by the runaway train. He can't stop the train and the child is too far away to warn of the danger, but he can throw a switch that will divert the train down the siding where his Bugatti is parked. Then nobody will be killed —but the train will destroy his Bugatti. Thinking of his joy in owning the car and the financial security it represents, Bob decides not to throw the switch. The child is killed. For many years to come, Bob enjoys owning his Bugatti and the financial security it represents.

Bob's conduct, most of us will immediately respond, was gravely wrong. Unger agrees. But then he reminds us that we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children. We can give to organizations like UNICEF or Oxfam America. How much would we have to give one of these organizations to have a high probability of saving the life of a child threatened by easily preventable diseases? (I do not believe that children are more worth saving than adults, but since no one can argue that children have brought their poverty on themselves, focusing on them simplifies the issues.) Unger called up some experts and used the information they provided to offer some plausible estimates that include the cost of raising money, administrative expenses and the cost of delivering aid where it is most needed. By his calculation, $200 in donations would help a sickly 2-year-old transform into a healthy 6-year-old —offering safe passage through childhood's most dangerous years. To show how practical philosophical argument can be, Unger even tells his readers that they can easily donate funds by using their credit card and calling one of these toll-free numbers: (800) 367-5437 for Unicef; (800) 693-2687 for Oxfam America. [http://supportunicef.org/forms/whichcountry2.html for Unicef and http://www.oxfam.org/eng/donate.htm for Oxfam —PS]

Now you, too, have the information you need to save a child's life. How should you judge yourself if you don't do it? Think again about Bob and his Bugatti. Unlike Dora, Bob did not have to look into the eyes of the child he was sacrificing for his own material comfort. The child was a complete stranger to him and too far away to relate to in an intimate, personal way. Unlike Dora, too, he did not mislead the child or initiate the chain of events imperiling him. In all these respects, Bob's situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate to overseas aid and differs from Dora's situation.

If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have diverted the train and saved the child's life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money to one of the organizations listed above. Unless, that is, there is some morally important difference between the two situations that I have overlooked.

Is it the practical uncertainties about whether aid will really reach the people who need it? Nobody who knows the world of overseas aid can doubt that such uncertainties exist. But Unger's figure of $200 to save a child's life was reached after he had made conservative assumptions about the proportion of the money donated that will actually reach its target.

One genuine difference between Bob and those who can afford to donate to overseas aid organizations but don't is that only Bob can save the child on the tracks, whereas there are hundreds of millions of people who can give $200 to overseas aid organizations. The problem is that most of them aren't doing it. Does this mean that it is all right for you not to do it?

Suppose that there were more owners of priceless vintage cars —Carol, Dave, Emma, Fred and so on, down to Ziggy— all in exactly the same situation as Bob, with their own siding and their own switch, all sacrificing the child in order to preserve their own cherished car. Would that make it all right for Bob to do the same? To answer this question affirmatively is to endorse follow-the-crowd ethics —the kind of ethics that led many Germans to look away when the Nazi atrocities were being committed. We do not excuse them because others were behaving no better.

We seem to lack a sound basis for drawing a clear moral line between Bob's situation and that of any reader of this article with $200 to spare who does not donate it to an overseas aid agency. These readers seem to be acting at least as badly as Bob was acting when he chose to let the runaway train hurtle toward the unsuspecting child. In the light of this conclusion, I trust that many readers will reach for the phone and donate that $200. Perhaps you should do it before reading further.

The Singer Solution to World Poverty 2

Now that you have distinguished yourself morally from people who put their vintage cars ahead of a child's life, how about treating yourself and your partner to dinner at your favorite restaurant? But wait. The money you will spend at the restaurant could also help save the lives of children overseas! True, you weren't planning to blow $200 tonight, but if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount. And what is one month's dining out, compared to a child's life? There's the rub. Since there are a lot of desperately needy children in the world, there will always be another child whose life you could save for another $200. Are you therefore obliged to keep giving until you have nothing left? At what point can you stop?

Hypothetical examples can easily become farcical. Consider Bob. How far past losing the Bugatti should he go? Imagine that Bob had got his foot stuck in the track of the siding, and if he diverted the train, then before it rammed the car it would also amputate his big toe. Should he still throw the switch? What if it would amputate his foot? His entire leg?

As absurd as the Bugatti scenario gets when pushed to extremes, the point it raises is a serious one: only when the sacrifices become very significant indeed would most people be prepared to say that Bob does nothing wrong when he decides not to throw the switch. Of course, most people could be wrong; we can't decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. But consider for yourself the level of sacrifice that you would demand of Bob, and then think about how much money you would have to give away in order to make a sacrifice that is roughly equal to that. It's almost certainly much, much more than $200. For most middle-class Americans, it could easily be more like $200,000.

The Singer Solution to World Poverty - 3

Isn't it counterproductive to ask people to do so much? Don't we run the risk that many will shrug their shoulders and say that morality, so conceived, is fine for saints but not for them? I accept that we are unlikely to see, in the near or even medium-term future, a world in which it is normal for wealthy Americans to give the bulk of their wealth to strangers. When it comes to praising or blaming people for what they do, we tend to use a standard that is relative to some conception of normal behavior. Comfortably off Americans who give, say, 10 percent of their income to overseas aid organizations are so far ahead of most of their equally comfortable fellow citizens that I wouldn't go out of my way to chastise them for not doing more. Nevertheless, they should be doing much more, and they are in no position to criticize Bob for failing to make the much greater sacrifice of his Bugatti.

At this point various objections may crop up. Someone may say: "If every citizen living in the affluent nations contributed his or her share I wouldn't have to make such a drastic sacrifice, because long before such levels were reached, the resources would have been there to save the lives of all those children dying from lack of food or medical care. So why should I give more than my fair share?" Another, related, objection is that the Government ought to increase its overseas aid allocations, since that would spread the burden more equitably across all taxpayers.

The Singer Solution to World Poverty - 4

Yet the question of how much we ought to give is a matter to be decided in the real world —and that, sadly, is a world in which we know that most people do not, and in the immediate future will not, give substantial amounts to overseas aid agencies. We know, too, that at least in the next year, the United States Government is not going to meet even the very modest United Nations-recommended target of 0.7 percent of gross national product; at the moment it lags far below that, at 0.09 percent, not even half of Japan's 0.22 percent or a tenth of Denmark's 0.97 percent. Thus, we know that the money we can give beyond that theoretical "fair share" is still going to save lives that would otherwise be lost. While the idea that no one need do more than his or her fair share is a powerful one, should it prevail if we know that others are not doing their fair share and that children will die preventable deaths unless we do more than our fair share? That would be taking fairness too far.

Thus, this ground for limiting how much we ought to give also fails. In the world as it is now, I can see no escape from the conclusion that each one of us with wealth surplus to his or her essential needs should be giving most of it to help people suffering from poverty so dire as to be life-threatening. That's right: I'm saying that you shouldn't buy that new car, take that cruise, redecorate the house or get that pricey new suit. After all, a $1,000 suit could save five children's lives.

So how does my philosophy break down in dollars and cents? An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.

Now, evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn't sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers. On the facts of human nature, they might be right, but they would be wrong to draw a moral conclusion from those facts. If it is the case that we ought to do things that, predictably, most of us won't do, then let's face that fact head-on. Then, if we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money. If that makes living a morally decent life extremely arduous, well, then that is the way things are. If we don't do it, then we should at least know that we are failing to live a morally decent life —not because it is good to wallow in guilt but because knowing where we should be going is the first step toward heading in that direction.

When Bob first grasped the dilemma that faced him as he stood by that railway switch, he must have thought how extraordinarily unlucky he was to be placed in a situation in which he must choose between the life of an innocent child and the sacrifice of most of his savings. But he was not unlucky at all. We are all in that situation.