World Hunger: The Ethical Issues Involved With Minimizing It Between now and tomorrow morning, 40,000 children will die from starvation. The day after tomorrow, 40,000 more children will die. Nearly 870 million people of the 7.1 billion people, or one in 8 people, in the world suffer from undernourishment. Almost all of the hungry people, 852 million, live in under developing countries while the other 15 million live in developed countries. World hunger has been and will continue to be an ongoing issue until ethical action will be taken. The world produces enough food for everyone, however, not many people have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase enough food. But what is being done to minimize world hunger? There is a societal responsibility as well as a governmental responsibility that should be utilized in order to reduce this issue. However, neither category of people will take the time to realize how bad world hunger has really become. There are several ethical issues involved with the minimization of world hunger including those of the three theories of ethical thought: consequential, deontological, and humanist theories. I, also have my personal opinion about the actions or lack thereof, involved with this minimization. It's simple to ignore something you can't necessarily see. Understanding that there is world hunger is one thing, but taking action to minimize it is another. It is a population's responsibility as a whole to work together in order to make a difference in the world's hunger rate. This includes society's responsibility and the government's responsibility. It would take a median of $50 extra of taxpayers per year in order to cut world hunger in half. When asked if they would be willing to pay this extra amount per year, 75 percent of Americans said they would be willing to pay while 19 percent said they would not (Warf 1). Americans seem to feel a strong moral responsibility to help poor countries develop, and they believe that doing so will ultimately serve U.S. political and economic interests. Governments exist to provide things that people cannot provide for themselves. However, there in an unequal distribution of income and it has persisted over centuries. Less income means less money to buy food which leads to malnutrition. This causes greater infant mortality, as well as reduced cognitive ability. Overall, it is a major cause of poor health. Many basic services such as clean water, water disposal, and essential health services are not available at all (Vanderslice 2). The Ethiopian government is a good example of an unethical organization. Every Ethiopian government over the past four decades has blamed famine on acts of God. They put the blame on drought weather conditions, overgrazing, deforestation, etc. and therefore they refuse to take any sort of productive action to minimize hunger because they believe it will be deceiving the things God has made happen. When in reality, they should be focused on the wellbeing of their society and dedicating organizations and programs that will ethically deal with the issue at hand. The World Food Program's (WFP) "Zero Hunger: A World Without Hunger" was a contest in which they asked kids that currently were getting benefits from a school feeding program what it would be like in a world without hunger. Many of them drew their families with smiles and food at their fingertips. In a world without world hunger, families wouldn't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. The only worry they might have is what restaurant or new dish do they want to try for dinner. The resolution of world hunger would affect the 870 million starving people. With an even income distribution, underdeveloped countries would be able to become developed and the economies within these countries would be growing. At a national level, governments in Brazil and Ghana have shown how to cut hunger briskly, through things like cash transfers to poor people, raising the minimum wage and investing in smallholder farms, who suffer from a brutally unfair farming system. Aside from supporting aid for food and agricultural investment, we can begin the end to world hunger on a personal level by putting our own houses in order. The rich countries are part of both the solution and the problem. We urgently need an international effort to find a way to feed the planet's growing population without destroying its ecosystems. The consequential theory of ethical thought is part of the world hunger issue. However, it is implied oppositely in a sense that world hunger does bring net happiness or pleasure to society as a whole. The hunger that is so real throughout the world would be considered ethically incorrect because by adding up all the unhappiness this causes certain societies, we realize that it is very unethical. The saying "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the backbone of the deontological theory of ethical thought. This saying directly applies to the issues of world hunger. Are the rich really thinking about what it would be like to live in the shoes of those in poverty? Probably not. Actions can be judged as either ethically good or ethically bad. The actions taken by citizens that are willing to pay $50 extra per year to try and help end world hunger would be considered ethically good. The governments inaction to end world hunger and distribute word hunger as a whole would obviously be considered ethically bad. The humanist theory of ethical thought is what I believe to be the most relevant when it comes to world hunger. It deals directly with actions that are viewed as good or bad depending on whether they contribute to improving human capacities including intelligence, wisdom, and self-restraint. Damaged bodies and brains are a result and it's a tragic waste of economic potential. People's brain activity is effected greatly when they have no food and it is clear that people's physique also suffers when they are in starvation. Since most of people that are hungry are living in poverty, if they can't afford to buy food, they most likely won't be able to afford schooling. Therefore, world hunger has an effect on society's level of intelligence also. Some of the facts that I researched about world hunger where beyond shocking. As juvenile as it sounds, if every person ate only when they were hungry, and the food they would didn't eat simply out of boredom or what not would go directly to the starving people, not only would this end world hunger but it would also reduce public obesity. America is fat and needs to be put on a diet and what better way to do so than limiting the amount of food taken in from boredom or entertainment that our stomachs aren't even hungry for. Our ability to end world hunger is so simply yet we choose not to think about it most of the time. If every person in the world were to Google "starving child", maybe half of the world's population would contribute to minimizing it. Whether we are helping or not, we take our meals for granted. I am guilty of this. I don't wonder where my next meal is going to come from and I'm not sure if I ever will. I am also guilty of wasting food. It's so easy to eat until we're full and then just throw the rest in the trash and not have a second thought about it. I can guarantee though, that a starving child would dig through our trashcans if they had the chance just to feed themselves something for the day or the week. I don't believe the government is taking the adequate course of action to minimize this world hunger. I think that they believe there are bigger and more important issues to deal with and disregard this specific one. There will always be hungry people in the world. The chances of minimizing world hunger has great potential but the chances of ending it completely are slim. Even distribution of income is one of the many ways to minimize the hunger. Resolution of this issue would affect the 870 million people that suffer from hunger on a daily basis. Americans are willing to pay $50 extra per year to help end world hunger but a program like this has yet to be utilized. Many starving people don't have the resources which would enable them to provide themselves and their families with food. Each theory of ethical thought is relevant in the analysis of world hunger. The consequential theory works in an opposite way when it come to hunger. When you add up all the risks involved, you realize that it does not bring net happiness or pleasure to society. The deontological theory works directly with the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do to you." This is most relevant when it comes to the rich that don't have a second thought about what it might be like to live in someone else's shoes that suffers from starvation. Finally, the humanist theory states that an action maybe good or bad depending on whether it contributes to improving human intelligence, wisdom, and self-restraint and starvation damages a person's brain and physical demeanor. We can only hope that world hunger will be minimized in a fast and timely, ethical manner.

Bibliography
"2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger Education Service." 2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger Education Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

"UN World Food Program." 'Zero Hunger: A World Without Hunger' Pictured By Child Artists. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.

Vanderslice, Lane. "Harmful Economic Systems as a Cause of Hunger and Poverty by Lane Vanderslice, Hunger Notes." Harmful Economic Systems as a Cause of Hunger and Poverty by Lane Vanderslice, Hunger Notes. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2014.

Warf, Phillip S. "Warf : Americans Strongly Support Helping Hungry People."Warf : Americans Strongly Support Helping Hungry People. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.