Narveson's comments on the morality of feeding the poor seems to highlight the futility of aiding poverty overseas. While donating money to less prosperous countries seems to an obvious and effective solution to the hunger crisis, it's only a temporary solution that, in the long run, may actually create more problems than it would solve. In the conclusion to his chapter on feeding the hungry, Narveson points out that hunger is usually caused by a number of other, much more serious problems like corrupt governments and problems with their agricultural system that go beyond a shortage of food. Moreover, because the food is being supplied from outside, there won't be as much of an incentive for the countries to develop their agricultural economy which could, in the long run, stunt them.
This seems to raise a number of problems with the idea of utilitarianism. Many utilitarians argue that people in developed countries should feel obligated to donate money to help feed the people in poorer countries; however, is there even a guarantee that this would maximize pleasure? This idea fails for both Bentham and Mill's versions of utilitarianism. Mill's version presents an immediate contradiction: the base pleasure gained from keeping people alive wouldn't make up for the "higher pleasures" that people in third world countries might give up in order to donate. For Bentham's version, the conclusion is a bit more vague: donating the poor could maximize pleasure in the present, but in the long run cause more pain. By y keeping them alive, we could end up causing them even more pain in the future since hunger is usually accompanied with many other problems like lack of education, corrupt upper government, and general poverty.