Two main types of philosophical arguments have been given in support of the claim that the citizens of affluent societies have stringent moral duties to aid the global poor: “positive duty” arguments based on the notion of beneficence and “negative duty” arguments based on noninterference. Peter Singer’s positive duty argument (Singer Philosophy and Public Affairs 1:229–243, Singer 1972) and Thomas Pogge’s negative duty argument (Pogge 2002) are among the most prominent examples. Philosophers have made speculative claims about the relative effectiveness of these arguments in promoting attitudes and behaviors that could lead to the alleviation of poverty. In this article we present the results of two empirical studies that evaluate these claims, and suggest that both arguments have a modest effect on people’s attitudes and behaviors regarding global poverty. In a replication of the second study, the negative duty argument, in particular, had a statistically significant effect on donations. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these results and suggest directions for further research on the role that philosophical arguments can play in engendering concern and action on pressing moral problems.

为了支持富裕社会的公民有严格的道德义务来帮助全球穷人的主张，人们提出了两种主要的哲学论据：基于善意概念的“积极义务”论据和基于非干扰性的“消极义务”论证。 。彼得·辛格（Peter Singer）的积极责任论（歌手哲学与公共事务最著名的例子包括：Singer（1：229–243，Singer，1972）和Thomas Pogge的负面责任论证（Pogge 2002）。哲学家对这些论点在促进可能导致减轻贫困的态度和行为方面的相对有效性进行了投机性主张。在本文中，我们介绍了两项评估这些主张的实证研究的结果，并提出这两种论点对人们对全球贫困的态度和行为均具有适度的影响。在第二项研究的复制中，负关税论点尤其对捐赠产生了统计学上的显着影响。