With the current global economic crisis, many nations have been reconsidering their current philosophy of economic policies. Additionally, ethical theorists of economics have recognized that the current form global capitalistic economy needs to be reconstructed with more emphasis placed on global social welfare. This rising form of economic thought has led many theorists to views that are drawing quite closely to the Qur’anic view of economic and social welfare. One of the biggest proponents and developers of this line of thought is world renowned Australian Philosopher Peter Singer, who has written numerous works on issues of global poverty and the need for the affluent nations to change their current economic policies. In his most famous work, “Famine, Affluence and Morality” he argues that affluent persons and nations are morally obligated to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in modern capitalistic societies. The essay was inspired by the starvation of Bangladesh Liberation War refugees, and uses their situation as an example, although Singer's argument also addresses issues on a general global scope. Below are excerpts from his essay as well my comments on how his points fit in line with the Qur’anic framework.
Duty to enhance welfare for those inside as well as outside one’s society
“I shall argue that the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way we look at moral issues - our moral conceptual scheme - needs to be altered, and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society. In arguing for this conclusion I will not, of course, claim to be morally neutral. I shall, however, try to argue for the moral position that I take, so that anyone who accepts certain assumptions, to be made explicit, will, I hope, accept my conclusion. I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. I think most people will agree about this, although one may reach the same view by different routes. I shall not argue for this view. People can hold all sorts of eccentric positions, and perhaps from some of them it would not follow that death by starvation is in itself bad. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to refute such positions, and so for brevity I will henceforth take this assumption as accepted. Those who disagree need read no further.
My next point is this: 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. By "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance" I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent. This principle seems almost as uncontroversial as the last one. It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important. I could even, as far as the application of my argument to the Bengal emergency is concerned, qualify the point so as to make it: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.
The uncontroversial appearance of the principle just stated is deceptive. If it were acted upon, even in its qualified form, our lives, our society, and our world would be fundamentally changed. For the principle takes, firstly, no account of proximity or distance. It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. Secondly, the principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position.”
2:27 -(Just as there is One Creator, likewise mankind is but one Community.) Those who break this ratified Bond of God and cut asunder the unity of mankind that God has commanded them to uphold, and thus lay the foundation of chaos on earth, those will be the losers in the long run.
Since, the Qur’an s states that mankind is one community and the divine laws make no distinction upon its creation there can be no room for different treatment of people. As Singer correctly states, an important point we all must consider is the needs of all human beings whether they are inside or outside our own society. The promotion of preference upon different societies who are affluent creates disparities among mankind as a whole.
Obligation to benefit the less fortunate
“There may be a greater need to defend the second implication of my principle - that the fact that there are millions of other people in the same position, in respect to the Bengali refugees, as I am, does not make the situation significantly different from a situation in which I am the only person who can prevent something very bad from occurring. Again, of course, I admit that there is a psychological difference between the cases; one feels less guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others, similarly placed, who have also done nothing. Yet this can make no real difference to our moral obligations. [2] Should I consider that I am less obliged to pull the drowning child out of the pond if on looking around I see other people, no further away than I am, who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing? One has only to ask this question to see the absurdity of the view that numbers lessen obligation. It is a view that is an ideal excuse for inactivity; unfortunately most of the major evils - poverty, overpopulation, pollution - are problems in which everyone is almost equally involved. “
It is interesting that Singer discusses the notion of obligations to prevent bad situations from arising globally. The example that he use to relate the situation of a drowning child with that of one dying of hunger, truly evokes the dire image at hand. Singer’s notion is very much similar to the notion of Deen which in its original meaning meant obligation. Hence, Singer’s analysis according to the Qur’an is correct as Islam(causation of peace and security) states that humans have an obligation to each other to enjoin good and prevent the vices of the world such poverty and inequality that hold mankind back from creating a peaceful and equitable existence.
Common Objections to Moral scheme of Global Social Welfare
“If my argument so far has been sound, neither our distance from a preventable evil nor the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation as we are, lessens our obligation to mitigate or prevent that evil. I shall therefore take as established the principle I asserted earlier. As I have already said, I need to assert it only in its qualified form: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.
One objection to the position I have taken might be simply that it is too drastic a revision of our moral scheme. People do not ordinarily judge in the way I have suggested they should. Most people reserve their moral condemnation for those who violate some moral norm, such as the norm against taking another person's property. They do not condemn those who indulge in luxury instead of giving to famine relief. But given that I did not set out to present a morally neutral description of the way people make moral judgments, the way people do in fact judge has nothing to do with the validity of my conclusion. My conclusion follows from the principle which I advanced earlier, and unless that principle is rejected, or the arguments are shown to be unsound, I think the conclusion must stand, however strange it appears. It might, nevertheless, be interesting to consider why our society, and most other societies, do judge differently from the way I have suggested they should. In a well known article, J. O. Urmson suggests that the imperatives of duty, which tell us what we must do, as distinct from what it would be good to do but not wrong not to do, function so as to prohibit behavior that is intolerable if men are to live together in society. [3] This may explain the origin and continued existence of the present division between acts of duty and acts of charity. Moral attitudes are shaped by the needs of society, and no doubt society needs people who will observe the rules that make social existence tolerable. From the point of view of a particular society, it is essential to prevent violations of norms against killing, stealing, and so on. It is quite inessential, however, to help people outside one's own society.”
Singer brings up the topic of why current societies judge differently from the conclusion of his argument. As he notes, current societies only observe to prevent present violations that make social existence tolerable within their own particular societies, while less emphasizing or neglecting the needs of people outside their own society. Throughout history this philosophy has been commonly believed by societies to be the only system that is in line with human nature. This has resulted in a pertinent issue:each society has devised a system which serves its own interests and gives support to only to those who support its own aspirations. Each system is suited only to its leaders but fails to serve others. The existing, global social systems have thus divided mankind into opposition instead of unity in a common goal or purpose, global prosperity. Therefore, a need for a global outlook which would embrace all humanity cannot be denied.
Division of Duties, Wealth and Means of Production
If this is an explanation of our common distinction between duty and supererogation, however, it is not a justification of it. The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. Previously, as I have already mentioned, this may hardly have been feasible, but it is quite feasible now. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society.
It has been argued by some writers, among them Sidgwick and Urmson, that we need to have a basic moral code which is not too far beyond the capacities of the ordinary man, for otherwise there will be a general breakdown of compliance with the moral code. Crudely stated, this argument suggests that if we tell people that they ought to refrain from murder and give everything they do not really need to famine relief, they will do neither, whereas if we tell them that they ought to refrain from murder and that it is good to give to famine relief but not wrong not to do so, they will at least refrain from murder. The issue here is: Where should we draw the line between conduct that is required and conduct that is good although not required, so as to get the best possible result? This would seem to be an empirical question, although a very difficult one. One objection to the Sidgwick-Urmson line of argument is that it takes insufficient account of the effect that moral standards can have on the decisions we make.
Given a society in which a wealthy man who gives 5 percent of his income to famine relief is regarded as most generous, it is not surprising that a proposal that we all ought to give away half our incomes will be thought to be absurdly unrealistic. In a society which held that no man should have more than enough while others have less than they need, such a proposal might seem narrow-minded. What it is possible for a man to do and what he is likely to do are both, I think, very greatly influenced by what people around him are doing and expecting him to do.”
In light of the above statements, it is recognizable that the division of labor should also be taken into account. Singer, ask the question of how one should divide duties amongst societies. The Qur’an stresses that all mankind is equal, hence in a labor system this must take this into account. The Qur’anic view is that the personal worth of an individual does not depend on his talent to do a thing but on what he actually does and how much they strive in their labor, thus manual work can have as much value as intellectual work. Besides this, the differences that humans bestow on each other is their unique individuality. However different people may be in respect of intelligence, they can be equal in respect of personal worth, if each works conscientiously to the limit of his capacity. Division of labor is meant to ensure maximum production of wealth. It does not imply that the person who does manual work is inferior to the person who organizes the industry. Without a doubt, the work of one person may be more than that of another, the Qur’an takes the position that a person who earns more should not keep it all for himself, but should give a surplus commensurate to his earnings to those who, through lack of ability or opportunity cannot earn enough to satisfy their needs. The problem that some past and present capitalistic societies have faced is that they have appealed too much to the self-interest motives of the humans and in a sense have enticed those who have huge masses of wealth to give in to anti-social tendencies.
16:71 - And God has caused some of you to excel in earning livelihood over others. And yet, they who are more abundantly provided are often unwilling to share their provision with those who work for them, lest all might be equal in this respect. Will they continue to deny God’s blessings in this manner?
Thus a necessary consequence of this view is that the means of production should not be possessed by a single individual, nation, party or group but should be held in common by all.
Principles of Economic Distribution
“How much we all ought to be giving away. One possibility, which has already been mentioned, is that we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility - that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift. This would mean, of course, that one would reduce oneself to very near the material circumstances of a Bengali refugee. It will be recalled that earlier I put forward both a strong and a moderate version of the principle of preventing bad occurrences. The strong version, which required us to prevent bad things from happening unless in doing so we would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, does seem to require reducing ourselves to the level of marginal utility. I should also say that the strong version seems to me to be the correct one. I proposed the more moderate version - that we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant - only in order to show that, even on this surely undeniable principle, a great change in our way of life is required. On the more moderate principle, it may not follow that we ought to reduce ourselves to the level of marginal utility, for one might hold that to reduce oneself and one's family to this level is to cause something significantly bad to happen.”
One of the most notable issues that Singer highlights in this part of his argument is how should wealth be distributed in a global society and how much should be given? These are all crucial questions which all nations must answer. There must be some sort or economic order that takes these issues into account and provides an equitable solution. The Qur’an terms this economic order as Zaakat and is explained in the following verses:
2:215 (A crucial step toward the establishment of this Zakaat Order will be the equitable distribution of wealth.) They ask you, (O Messenger) what they should give. Say, “What you give shall go to parents, relatives, orphans, widows, and those who are left helpless or feel left out in the society, the poor, those whose hard earned income is insufficient to meet their basic needs, those whose lives have stalled for any reason, and the disabled, the needy wayfarer, and the homeless son of the street.” And whatever good you do, most certainly, God is well Aware of it.
2:219-And they ask you what they should give. Say, “All that is surplus.” Thus God makes His messages plain for you, that you may reflect.
Hence,the Qur’an proposes that the mankind should determine the basic conditions and resources that are necessary for individuals in societies to live equitably. Instead of excessive use or consumption of unnecessary amounts of resources and funds, just as affluent individuals give surplus of wealth all surpluses of resources will be distributed equitably amongst the needy in the society by the societal institutions of the Qur’anic system. Singer makes note that in order to accomplish the task of creating a more just economic order we need not reduce the global societies to a level of pure utilitarianism, a concept which many people often think about when situations of distribution of wealth or societal welfare are addressed. Moreover, the Quranic view of social welfare must not be confused with the concept of a Communist society, which works for the interest of collective utility and does not concern itself with personal growth of an individual. The Communist society is molded and exploited by the desires and whims of the elite or those who are in power. However, in a Qur’anic society the central notion is that the society must work for both collective and individual growth of self, by upholding human rights and encouraging acts that benefit humanity as a whole. Hence, the emphasis on growth of the “self” is what distinguishes the Qur’anic society from the Communist society. Therefore it would be disengenous to label the Qur'anic economic system as purely utilitarian or as purely capitalistic. The economic guidelines of the Qur'an presents a path between both systems,which ultimately presents a challenge in today's world where these competing polar ideologies are widespread and often embedded as the only solutions to develop a society in the minds of many people worldwide.
Capitalism’s Distortion of Humanity's Goals
“Whether this is so I shall not discuss, since, as I have said, I can see no good reason for holding the moderate version of the principle rather than the strong version. Even if we accepted the principle only in its moderate form, however, it should be clear that we would have to give away enough to ensure that the consumer society, dependent as it is on people spending on trivia rather than giving to famine relief, would slow down and perhaps disappear entirely. There are several reasons why this would be desirable in itself. The value and necessity of economic growth are now being questioned not only by conservationists, but by economists as well. [5] There is no doubt, too, that the consumer society has had a distorting effect on the goals and purposes of its members. Yet looking at the matter purely from the point of view of overseas aid, there must be a limit to the extent to which we should deliberately slow down our economy; for it might be the case that if we gave away, say, 40 percent of our Gross National Product, we would slow down the economy so much that in absolute terms we would be giving less than if we gave 25 percent of the much larger GNP that we would have if we limited our contribution to this smaller percentage.”
Although the capitalistic society, throughout history has produced many positive effects and wonders, has also produced negative effects that have greatly outweighed its merits. Societies based on consumer systems often end up with dissolution of its citizens, since it creates struggles between social classes. Singer makes a notable point that Capitalism has misconstrued the reality of the global needs of humans and has erred in the process of distribution of resources. Throughout the history of Capitalistic societies, the poor majority have been neglected and often exploited by the few wealthy elite. The error that the capitalistic system has made is that it is has been based on several assumptions: the first assumption is that an invidual has an inalienable right to the property that one has acquired ,second is that society can prosper only when it does not interfere with the economic activity of the individual and lastly that there is nothing wrong if one is affluent and keeps all the wealth that they earn for themselves. The Qur’an warns mankind about engaging in capitalistic practices such as hoarding of wealth and states that in order to gain true prosperity in this world we must set up a just economic system.
3:130-O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Devour not other people’s money by way of usury(interest) which is compounded over and over again. Live upright as ordained by God in order to attain true prosperity of the society. (Usury is the return on money should not be allowed while trade is the return on labor is permissible)
The capitalistic philosophy ultimately creates an unfair system but as present times are showing, nations are beginning to realize a need to reconstruct their economic policies. The Qur’an states that we must recognize our obligation to establish a just economic order for mankind but states that we must proceed cautiously in our process of actualizing this order. For now as long as humanity is moving in the right direction and recognizing the need for the reform we need not doubt our goal of achieving the prosperous objective for mankind to live peacefully.
40 : 59-Verily, the promised revolution is sure to come ; there is no doubt about it ; yet most of mankind believe not
-
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne.
-
Qur'an verse from The Qur'an As It Explains Itself- Dr. Shabbir Ahmed
Copyright ©2010 Kamran Cheikh