SDG 2 - Zero Hunger

End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

 

Assignment 4: Food for Free

Please write 250-500 words (total) on the following questions.

Please go to Food for Free and have a look at the 2016 report on hunger in Massachusetts and write a reflection answering the questions above with respect to what you learned from these resources about Food for Free’s work.

  1. Please describe one idea that you found powerful. What message did you get from it?
  2. Please critically reflect on the message in your own terms. Do you see connections with readings we have done so far on food justice, food security, food sovereignty, the social meaning of food/water, capitalism, labor justice, waste, industrial agriculture?
  3. If you were to teach someone something you learned from the presentation, what would you tell them?

Assignment 1: Pond and Charity

In his essay, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Singer argues that there is a close analogy between POND and CHARITY (see p. 38 of FES).

  1. What are the relevant similarities between POND and CHARITY for the purposes of Singer's argument?
  2. Do you think that the analogy supports his conclusion? Why or why not?
  3. Suppose someone objected: But in POND, there is one drowning child. In CHARITY, there are too many starving children to help by a single action, so I would have to give something additional up daily for my whole life. This is too much to ask. How would Singer respond?

Discussion Question - Why Eat Less Meat

The website Why Eat Less Meat cites four major reasons to eat less meat: the efficiency of the global food system, the environment, health (both personal and public), and animal welfare. Which of these reasons to eat less meat do you find most compelling? Are any of these reasons (or the combination of them) compelling enough to make you think you personally should eat less meat? Why or why not?

 

Discussion Question - Famine Relief

In his clip from Examined Life, Peter Singer argues that we should all be giving substantial amounts of money and/or time to famine relief, e.g., by giving to Oxfam. He draws on an analogy: suppose you were walking by a shallow pond and a child was drowning. All you need to do to save her life is wade in and help her, though you would ruin your nice shoes. You are morally required to sacrifice your shoes to save the child's life. He argues: children are dying every day from famine. If you restrict yourself to what you really need and sacrifice luxuries, giving the money you save to famine relief, you will save many lives. So you are morally required to do so. What do you think of the analogy? 

 

Subscribe to RSS - SDG 2 - Zero Hunger