Engle has a Large Install Base

I am in support of Engle’s argument because it has an established base of supporters and is relatively easy in execution. Affluent people as a whole are morally obligated to prevent unnecessary suffering if doing so is relatively effortless and painless. Through this logic, Engel provides a strong foundation for the normalization of giving aid to poor countries and converting to a vegetarian or vegan diet. Through the manipulation of a pre-existing set of morals, Engle is able to mobilize or an entire group of people. He is preaching to a choir of people who by virtue of their morals, and the assumption that moral consistency is desirable, will follow his lead.


It is difficult to argue on the side of an extra latte, or a 1% decrease from your overall income if it will save a few lives. As an increased incentive for sustained charity, Engle actively decries that the person who gives should do so when it is basically effortless and does not decrease “noticeably” from their standard of living. While someone may be tempted to give all they can and save as many lives as possible, it is better in the long run if people all give a little over a long period of time. This will cause a substantial decrease in the starvation of poor people. His evidence concerning the ease of a vegetarian diet and the waste of grain-fed livestock overpowers the argument of taste, smell, and most importantly, tradition. All that the ethic needs to work is a person’s moral compass working in just the right way and an understanding of the broad nature of their morals in a global scale.