Affluence and Morality

A Christian Response

Introduction

In his influential 1973 essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, philosopher Peter Singer made a simple yet compelling argument — if we can do something about other’s suffering, we should, even to the point of significant sacrifice. For those living in affluence, this poses a challenge to those who want to think of themselves as good people. Most Christians, even those living in affluence, seem to think of themselves as good people.

Singer wrote in the context of an all-too-familiar context; famine and war, which, along with other forms of suffering, continue to plague humanity. Beyond the specifics of this famine, or that war, a central question remains:

In the presence of preventable poverty and suffering, do affluent Christians have any special moral obligations to the poor?

This short module explores this question, and challenges comfortable Christianity, presenting a suffering Christ whose priority was/is the poor. 

Duration: 30 mins

Famine

To what degree should famine and poverty affect the way wealthy Christians live, so that others may simply live?Should famine, on one side of the globe, interrupt a feast on the other? Despite the great advances made in the quality of life for many, the persistence of an unequal distribution of wealth and security create inherently unstable and unjust circumstances that imperil many. In fact, none of us are completely safe from such circumstances. 

Affluence

Affluence is an unclear term, that we can feel far too free to define in a way that can be very convenient for us. For the purpose of this module, let’s consider it in the presence of extreme poverty. If you and your loved ones were starving, or otherwise imperilled, how would you want those with “disposable income” to spend it? None of us are completely safe from finding ourselves in such horrible circumstances, and no affluent person, Singer argues, should feel free to ignore the plight of those exposed to such prevent suffering. 

Morality

If you are content to consider yourself an inherently selfish person, perhaps I aught to apologise for wasting your time, and inform you that there is little if anything you’re likely to agree with in reading further. Most people, however, do not see themselves as such. Christians especially, in orienting their life upon the person of Jesus Christ, typically accept certain demands upon their being in the world that carry moral responsibilities. 

If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacri‌ficing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.
— Peter Singer, Affluence, Poverty, and Morality

Conclusion

If, as a Christian, we take Christ’s call to care for those who are suffering seriously, this will be evident in how we live. It will influence how we spend our time and money, and we the world will evidently be better off for us being in it. 

Response

So… how aught we to live? Well, this section is written by us, upon the fabric of time and space, as we go into the world and demonstrate the love of God in action. No amount of mere words here will suffice. The world will see it in what we do and don’t do; in what we do and don’t buy. In how we give to the poor, near and far. In what we, therefore, have and don’t have.

We will not always make good decisions. So, we will need to find grace for ourselves in order to sustain our efforts. Most of us have responsibilities for others, and ourselves, that will limit the extent of our generousity. But, we will also find the inner compass of conscience, constantly challenging us to greater acts of compassion and self-sacrifice.

This is the life-long journey toward Christlikeness, that changes the lives and hearts of those around you, as it transforms your own life and heart. It aught to also transform people’s lives of whom you will never meet — the refugee, the poor; the starving; war-affected, sex-trafficked, slaves. And many, many more. 

Module Reflection

^{Image Credits}

^{1. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com}