On Famine, Affluence and Morality

 "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is a well known philosophical paper by Peter Singer written in 1972. He argues that it if one can save a life, it is evil not to do so, and especially argued the imperative to do so with famine relief.

I don't have training in philosophy (except logic) and this isn't any sort of critique of the paper, but a reaction from somewhat of a theological perspective.

That one is evil is a basic tenet of Christianity, so proving so through a philosophical argument related to famine is interesting, but any Christian knows they are evil, as this is the premise for seeking forgiveness and redemption.

In regards to the moral imperative of providing famine relief, this is a valid argument, but it involves trade-offs, as all of life does.  For example, one could argue that if giving money for famine relief is a moral imperative, so is one's occupation, and there is a moral imperative to have a job which helps other people, which saves the most lives, perhaps working for an agency that provides famine relief.

This involves another trade-off, as one might be suited for other work which is more remunerative, and one also has an obligation to provide for one's family.

One could make a similar argument in regards to taking care of one's health. This is a moral imperative, because being maximally healthy is the best way to maximally care for the needs of others. So one should exercise, eat as nutriciously as possible, and so forth, for the same reasons as Singer's paper points out.

There's no question we all fall short of this ideal, and hence the need for grace.

An interesting aspect of Singer's paper is it has no reference to God, but makes an ethical argument based solely on the moral imperative we have to save the lives of others if we can.  In the above, I'm making some logical extensions of this, and, of course, many more could be made.

From a Christian perspective, not only is there a moral imperative to serve others, to save other's lives from a physical standpoint, but a moral imperative to save eternal lives -- to proclaim the gospel for the eternal salvation of human beings. What could be more important than this?

The reason for this blog post is it occurred to me that these sorts of arguments are made from the pulpit often, speaking to the obligation we have to be better, often by reading the Bible, or prayer, or good works. All of these are great, of course, but these sermons don't seem to be very effective in terms of influencing the behavior of others.

Why not? Why doesn't this work?

That would be an interesting discussion for another blog post, but in this one I'll concentrate on a different question, which is, what does work.

In my experience, without question, what has had the most impact on me personally is a recognition of my need for grace, and the cost of it for God, whether Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

From the standpoint of Christ, He gave His life for us.  The sacrifice of Calvary is and endless theme upon which to contemplate. It wasn't simply physical pain that Christ experience, but pain and trauma in mind and soul that is beyond us.

From the Father's standpoint, seeing your child suffer is even more difficult than suffering one's self. There's also the question of risk to consider. If we postulate that it wasn't inevitable that Christ would succeed (yet another discussion for another blog post), then that the Father would risk the loss of His Son for our benefit, truly an eternal sacrifice, is unfathomable, and beyond beyond us, as high as the heavens are above the earth.

These sorts of contemplations have been most impactful for me, and even so the heart is so hard that even this impact seems woefully inadequate, but it's a start!

Would that God grant us the ability to grasp His love and be moved by it.