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

1729 Words7 Pages
I’m a strong believer in that anyone can make their own choices in life. There is no such thing as “moral obligation” in my books, however there does exist “courtesy” or “kind-heartedness.” Peter Singer’s argument regarding famine, affluence, and morality is, in my opinion, strongly influenced by sympathetic and empathetic feelings based on observations in a still developing country. In a sense, his reasoning is subjective and biased because he seems to focus only on the problem, and not the circumstances that could have prevented such problems from the beginning. I will elaborate on some of the loopholes in his arguments, and further clarify why the more fortunate people (in terms of wealth) should NOT be morally obligated to help the poor, rather they should have the choice of being courteous or kind, and they should have the freedom to spend the money they worked so hard for according to their own agenda. To start, I would like to establish that suffering and death from lack of food and other necessities is indeed a bad thing. There is no counter-argument to that statement. However, the problem lies in the second and third premises, which states that “(2) if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, then we have a moral duty to do it; (3) therefore, we have a moral duty to help the poor.” According to Singer, the second premise is comprised of a strong and weak argument. The strong argument states that the wealthy people should help the poor people at a
Get Access