Andrew Sasser Hunger is a significant problem throughout the world, even in developed countries such as the United States. Is it just that people starve in America, the wealthiest country in the world? Can hunger be resolved, and if so, how? Hunger is a multi-faceted problem, and it is unlikely that a single solution will work in every circumstance or every place; however, many of the principles espoused by philosophers such as Robert Nozick have implications that can be used to better tackle the problem of hunger in America. While hunger is not a matter of justice per se, the current methods used to address it are symptomatic of a larger problem, and by utilizing some of Nozick’s ideas, hunger can be much more effectively reduced. According to Nozick, a distribution (of resources) in society is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution (Nozick 150-151). By this standard, called the entitlement theory, the fact that some people do not have enough food in America is not, strictly speaking, unjust, assuming that people have acquired their possessions honestly, as well as considering the scarcity of resources (Nozick 150). Of course, in any society, there are individuals who acquire and maintain their holdings through unjust or illegal means, but that is a problem for the law enforcement and legal systems to handle, and as such, is beyond the scope of this paper. After establishing this base claim, Nozick groups various attempts at addressing serious inequality into two categories: “end-result principles” and “historical principles” (Nozick 153). End-result principles are methods that focus on the outcome that is trying to be achieved, without consideration of the process to get there (Nozick 153-155). Nozick uses welfare theory as an example of an end-result principle. Historical principles are methods that focus on the “how” of managing inequality, taking into account past circumstances when considering how to
handle inequality (Nozick 155), for example, in entitlement theory. Most solutions to ending hunger in America are based around end-result principles, and to more effectively solve the problem of hunger, historical principles might be better suited for the task. This is not to say that all end-result principles are lacking; in fact, a common manifestation of end-result ideologies is the “emergency food� system, which provides food and other necessary items to those in critical need, with the result of ending immediate hunger. These kind of programs are (and probably always will be) necessary in order to combat hunger in America, at least in the short-term; but, despite the genuine benefits that are provided by groups and charities in the emergency food system, these programs are not without blemishes. Janet Poppendieck, in her book Sweet Charity? Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement, poses several criticisms of the emergency food system. Her primary critiques focus on the impersonal/degrading nature of food banks, the penchant for a dependency relationship developing between the recipients of the aid and the givers, and the lack of choice offered to those in need (Poppendieck 238-240). While the emergency food system is essential for those in dire need, it is not ultimately an effective way of actually reducing hunger in America. In order to reduce the overall hunger in America, and therefore the dependence on food banks, the problems that lead to hunger need to be addressed at a more fundamental and individual level. A major problem with the end-result mentality is found in chapter four of Loretta Schwartz-Nobel’s Growing Up Empty, but in this case, the end result is getting a job. In the chapter, Schwartz-Nobel interviews Cathy Lewis, a director of a homeless shelter who used to be homeless herself. Throughout the course of the interview, Lewis tells Schwartz-Nobel of the struggles she faced trying to feed herself and her children. The most troubling part of her story came after she took a part-time job and lost most of her food stamps, leaving her and her family
worse off than they had been before (Schwartz-Nobel 140). Most welfare programs in the United States are centered on recipients getting a job, which is not, by itself, a bad thing. Unfortunately, because the notion that once someone has a job they will be able to work their way out of poverty is so ingrained in American society, it is difficult to imagine that people who have jobs may still require assistance to feed themselves and their families. It is this end-result focus which leads to the needs of people not being adequately met. By addressing this aspect of welfare with historical principles that take other considerations into account, the overall system can be improved, and the number of incidents like Lewis’ can be greatly reduced. A second key idea introduced by Nozick is what he calls “side-constraints”. Side constraints are restrictions placed on a goal or idea that are intended to limit the actions undertaken to achieve that goal in order to protect the rights of others (Nozick 29-30). The idea of side constraints is important to consider when looking at the problem of hunger because they emphasize the importance of the individual as an end in and of itself rather than as means to an end (Nozick 32). This emphasis is important, because all human beings, regardless of income or social status, should be treated with dignity and respect. By shifting towards historical principles and combining that with the idea of side constraints, it may be possible to treat the root causes of hunger in a more effective manner, as in the old adage, “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Rather than focusing solely on providing food to those in need, (although it may still be necessary), organizations should also focus on providing other, more specialized and individualized services that can help people break the cycle of poverty. This way, the immediate need can be taken care of while the long-term, bigpicture solution can begin.
An objection to this argument might be that while more personal, individualized help may be an ideal way to solve the hunger problem, it is not feasible to implement on a large scale. This argument is not without merit, as attempts to mitigate hunger in the U.S. on a large scale would typically require a large, bureaucratic organization such as the government to be effectively implemented, and such groups are, by nature, impersonal and distant. In spite of this, the welfare system as it is currently implemented is broken and attempts to fix the problem do not necessarily have to start at the top. In chapter four of his book Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty, Mark Winne shows the value of having local, community-organized programs to combat hunger. Winne’s focus was primarily on establishing community gardens to allow residents of lower-income neighborhoods access to fresh produce (Winne 50-68), however his methodology has practical applications elsewhere. If more decentralized, community-based initiatives can be successfully applied to other types of welfare programs, perhaps the current laws that undergird the broken system can be revised, shrinking the number of people who are dependent on aid in the United States. Hunger is a pervasive problem, and one that is unlikely to ever truly be eliminated, but with such a large percentage of the population dependent on emergency food or welfare, it seems that the current methods of combating hunger are largely ineffective in the long-term. Through the application of Robert Nozick’s concepts of justice, namely historical principles and sideconstraints, it is possible that hunger in America can be successfully reduced while also preserving the dignity of those involved. While hunger is not strictly a problem of justice, it is important that ideas and processes intended to manage hunger take principles of justice into account.