SEVERAL YEARS AGO, a graduate student in the Brown University Philosophy Department told me that he would be going without food for 30 hours the following week. He asked me for money.

No, he was not taking the “We care about the whole student” rhetoric so literally that he expected the faculty to see to his physical as well as his intellectual nourishment. He was not requesting money for his own use. Instead, he wanted me to sponsor him in a fast, organized by Oxfam members at Brown, to raise money for Sudan. Oxfam is an international group concerned with global hunger and poverty.

I offered to send Oxfam money for Sudan without reference to his fast. Wouldn’t that be a more direct approach to the problem? Why promote fasting?

Oxfam is eager to promote fasting. The Oxfam America Hunger Banquet and Fast Sourcebook offers various ideas about “how to get involved” in combating global hunger and poverty. One is to skip a meal and donate the cost of that meal to Oxfam. Another is to host an Oxfam America Hunger Banquet, which the Sourcebook describes as follows:

“Guests draw tickets at random that assign them each to either a high-, middle-, or low-income tier and receive a corresponding meal. The 15 percent in the high-income tier are served a sumptuous meal. The 35 percent in the middle-income section eat a simple meal of rice and beans. The 50 percent in the low-income tier help themselves to small portions of rice and water.”

These Hunger Banquets need not even raise money. Some simply aim to raise awareness. “Few experiences bring to life the inequalities in our world more powerfully than an Oxfam America Hunger Banquet event,” the sourcebook says. It quotes former Ohio Congressman Tony Hall as saying, “I was thrilled that diplomats and journalists got a small taste of the realities of global hunger and poverty.”

Skipping meals is supposed to be another way to raise awareness of global hunger and poverty.

Do you ever skip a meal? When I am dieting, I often do. I also often eat with friends whose meals are much more sumptuous than mine. Their meals may include an appetizer, a voluptuous main dish like fettuccine Alfredo, vegetable side dishes and a wonderful dessert, while I settle for plain baked fish.

If I thought that such experiences gave me even a small “taste of the realities of global hunger and poverty,” I might doubt that those realities called for urgent action. I hardly enjoy skipping a meal or dining much less lavishly than my companions. But I have the consolation of past lavish meals to remember and future ones to anticipate. Far from showing the comfortable how it feels to be in dire straits, Oxfam’s gimmicks trivialize the problem.

They also foster gratuitous self-deprivation. Self-deprivation is an evil that, at best, is sometimes necessary for a greater good. It is good to donate money to aid the poor. But how many Americans, even during the current economic crisis, really need to skip a meal to be able to afford donating?

It is good to be aware of global hunger and poverty, especially if such awareness leads to remedial action. Why not promote this awareness through reading and discussion, without gimmicks that distort more than they enlighten?

Want a gimmick? Here is a suggestion. Rather than skipping a meal and donating the cost of that meal to Oxfam, figure out how much you can afford to spend on two elaborate, self-indulgent meals at your favorite restaurant. Go to that restaurant and have one of those meals, complete with four desserts (if your tastes are like mine) or a bottle of fine wine (if they are not). Donate the cost of the other meal to Oxfam or to any other charity of your choice. The charity will get more money and you will get more pleasure than if you played at the poverty that the poor long to escape.

Felicia Nimue Ackerman, a monthly contributor, is a professor of philosophy at Brown University.