Analysis Of Peter Singer 's Argument On Famine, Affluence, And Morality Essay

In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.

the issue of poverty by suggesting Americans give away most of their income to aid those in need. Singer believes that withholding income is the equivalence of letting a child starve to death. Therefore, Singer suggests the ethical thing to do to end world hunger is to give up everyday luxuries. Although donating a vast amount of money could help dying and starving children, Singer’s proposition is not only unrealistic but also too demanding for everyday Americans who have responsibilities of their own.

     In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer claims that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Additionally, Singer believes that distance is no excuse for allowing something bad to happen; thus, we ought to help people on the other side of the world the same way we would help a neighbor – even though we may feel further inclined to help our neighbors. Moreover, Singer states that people should help as much as possible, without putting themselves or their dependents at risk of suffering. Peter Singer is correct in stating that people with the capacity to prevent something bad from occurring should do so; however,

Singer’s argument to world famine is giving charity is neither charitable nor generosity, but it’s an obligation to give money out and if you don’t, then it’s morally wrong. He states we as individuals have a duty to help reduce poverty and death because of starvation. Singer argues, suffering and death due to the lack of food, is terrible. Hence we have the power to help those group of people. By that, people can cut down the famine and suffering by giving famine relief and in doing so, we as individuals have to give a certain amount of money from our standard of living. This fails to recognize people’s own intrinsic moral values because Singer says we must always make the morally best decision.

Accepting the three premises seems to require us to reconsider the meaning of charity and duty. The obligation to give as much as we can becomes a matter of duty not charity. This upends the notion where charitable giving to those in need is praiseworthy, but failure is not to be condemned. By the force of Singer’s argument, failure to give is wrong because we must do everything in our power to direct every extra resource to those suffering from death and starvation. This changes our conception of giving from optional to obligatory. For example, it would wrong to buy a new shirt or enjoy a fine meal instead of giving to famine relief. Singer’s conclusion is simply This

Poverty is a result of absence of basic needs; food, shelter and medical care. If we are in a position to help an individual who is suffering, without sacrificing anything of moral importance we should help the individual. Singer used the child drowning on shallow pond story to illustrate his viewpoint. Many individuals have criticized the simplistic nature of the example and it’s discussed towards the end of the paper.

In third world nations, where there is a lack of infrastructure, limited resources, and fluctuating birth rates, the allocation of funds to preventing hunger would not be the best use of money. Singer’s argument would hypothetically decrease the death rate, however, it does not control for the birth rate and this would lead to overpopulation. By increasing the level of medical aid to the third world, we allow more individuals to survive. This is good for the individual, but not for all of society. Over time, given limited natural resources, overpopulation can create a burden on the environment and allows for a greater level of human suffering as the completion for resources intensified. This lack of resources is especially prevalent in the third world and combined with an even greater population, Singer’s argument could allow for an even larger problem of famine. Instead, in the short term, it would be advantageous to invest money in research, infrastructure, and developing technologies that would allow for a sustainable society given population growth. Although, in the short term, lives would be lost, as money would not be allocated to stopping hunger, from a utilitarian perspective, it would allow for the sustainability of a larger amount of lives in the future. Morally speaking, it would be better so save the

Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the

In his article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give assistance to people in absolute poverty. He derived this conclusion from three premises. The first states that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to it. The second premise is that absolute poverty is a bad thing. The third premise is that we are able to alleviate some portion of absolute poverty without giving up anything of comparable moral significance. To illustrate the urgency of our duty to assist the poor, he believes that in a case where we happen to walk pass a child drowning in a shallow pond, the vast majority of people would agree that it would be seriously morally wrong to not rescue the child. Connecting this scenario to Singer’s argument, we can say it is seriously morally wrong to not assist the poor because the lives of these people in need are of greater moral importance than the excess income we would otherwise spend on luxury goods. Thus, Singer is correct in saying that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor, and that failing to do so is equally as morally wrong as failing to rescue the drowning child.

Moral obligations are not based on one single platform since they differ within every community. Every community has their own necessities and what may seem to be a moral obligation to one may not be to another. Despite the differences, every individual has the power to make a positive transformation in and outside of their geographical location. As indicated by the philosopher Peter Singer, every individual has a set of moral obligations to live by in respect to famine. Famine is the topic discussed by Singer to bring upon his argument and mention that starvation and poverty are substandard. Singer contends that if we have the power to prevent menacing situations from happening, henceforth being a famine, without risking anything, our moral

Within “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer delves into the topic of famine; specifically, the moral obligations individuals in affluent countries have to those who are suffering. In his example, Singer focuses on the population of East Bengal, and their struggle with famine and extreme poverty. Singer proposes that with enough aid from both individuals and various governments extreme poverty can be eradicated. Therefore, the question he presents is why poor people are dying while affluent people are spending excess money on luxuries? Singer argues that affluent people, living in affluent countries, are not helping developing countries by failing to give enough to alleviate extreme poverty.

In the article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer sees extreme poverty as “not having enough income to meet the most basic human needs for adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, sanitation, health care or education” (pg. 234). Singer does not fail to compare those in extreme poverty to people who are living in absolute affluence. He suggests that it is the responsibility of those living in affluence to help those who are in need of obtaining even the basic human needs. He also argues that the affluent not helping is the moral equivalency of murder. Singer realizes that even though the rich can give to the poor these resources that they need, the rich do not feel enough of a moral mandate to do so. I disagree a bit with Singer because he seems to suggest that everyone who has the basic necessities is morally obligated to give but, I believe that this idea of a moral mandate to give should only apply to the extremely wealthy. Like Singer’s first premises says “If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.” (243) If the absolute affluent have large amounts of money, they can help to at least make people live comfortably without losing anything of great significance. The increasing poverty rates, not just in America but, globally cannot be solved if the extremely wealthy continue to do wasteful spending and choose to not put their money more towards programs and charities that better the lives of the people in their

In contrast to O'Neill's Kantian approach, Singer adopts a very sturdy utilitarian solution. He begins his argument by way of pointing out what is obvious: struggling and loss of life from famine is bad. He inserts the utilitarian aspect of the argument, that of advocating for the higher good, with the aid of writing that if it is within one's potential to forestall some thing bad from occurring, and in the process, now not sacrifice something of similar moral good, then one is sure to do it. Unlike the Kantian approach, Singer's does not exempt sure actions by means of virtue of space-time excuses. By accepting that human beings are equal, one is sure to help no be counted the place the famine is. That is, barring sacrificing something of equal ethical good. For example, if agent Y passes a little one drowning in a massive puddle, it would be a duty to help the little one out of the puddle. There is no difference, in accordance to Singer, with the hassle of famine. Singer's argument is simply that simple, but commonly sweeping in nature. Unlike the Kantian approach, it would entail primary adjustments to the way civilization

Addressed in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer’s full assertion is that, it is morally wrong for people to spend money on morally insignificant things instead of spending money to prevent suffering and dying from preventable diseases and famine. He begins his argument with the first premise: “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”(231) Such premise is direct, simple, accepted by most people in the society. Peter Singer hence take such assumption as accepted by the readers and quickly moves to his next premise.