In 1971, when philosopher Peter Singer wrote “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” the world was a much different place, a much less interdependent place. His main idea was that people purchasing things they didn’t absolutely need while someone in the world was starving was morally indefensible. Sure, that’s true, I agree. But what about beyond stabilizing such a society? What if consumer spending is the only way to raise others above a basic and tenuous subsistence?

I don’t mean this as a personal rationalization. I don’t buy a lot of crap I don’t need. But what if buying surplus goods is the only way to truly help not only ourselves but to bring struggling people into the marketplace and let them share in the material wealth (and the burdens) of such a system? Globalization could be a slow, painful step in the right direction. Or not. It depends on us. I’m really not interested in ideologies or what appears correct, just results. From the essay:

“The outcome of this argument is that our traditional moral categories are upset. The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not in the place we normally draw it. Giving money to the Bengal Relief Fund is regarded as an act of charity in our society. The bodies which collect money are known as ‘charities.’ These organizations see themselves in this way – if you send them a check, you will be thanked for your ‘generosity.’ Because giving money is regarded as an act of charity, it is not thought that there is anything wrong with not giving. The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned. People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them.) This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look ‘well-dressed’ we are not providing for any important need. We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable, or generous. Nor is it the kind of act which philosophers and theologians have called ‘supererogatory’ – an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do. On the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.”