Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality

Singer illustrates how when a person is in need or lacking, we should give them a lending hand until they are on their feet. Peter Singer writes about how if one can use their fortune to reduce the suffering of others, without hurting or diminishing the wellbeing of themselves or others, it would be immoral not to do so. The key here would be without diminishing themselves or the wellbeing of others. He states that this duty is equivalent to the saving of a drowning child. He explains how if someone were to see a child drowning in a pond it would be morally wrong to not help the child,

Singer provides counter-arguments in his work which I will talk about thoroughly. He offers his readers with a scenario which involves a drowning kid and a witness. Most people would try to save the kid since it's the “right” action to take. Singer proposes that this duty happens since lots of people know that a drowning kid is definitely a very bad thing and that we should do everything and anything in our power to prevent it from happening. But, the counter-argument in this situation proposes that because I am not the only individual seeing this event, why is it my duty to do something positive about it? Why must it be my ethical responsibility to assist this kid in case nobody else is doing anything regarding it? Singer, P. (1972) describes, “In case it's in our power to avoid something bad from occurring, without thereby compromising anything of comparable moral significance, we should, morally, to do it” (pg. 231). He thinks that we are able to do what's right however we should decide to do what's right even when everybody else decides not to.

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.

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.

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,

Jimmy carter once said, "We know that a peaceful world cannot long exist, one-third rich and two-thirds hungry." With the world now more interconnected than ever there might be a solution to world hunger by distribution of wealth. Peter Singer, in his article titled, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, takes this concept of unity that we have on a global scale and tries to tackle the issue of world hunger. Before we dive into the article we will focus on utilitarianism to help us understand his perspective better. Following, we will analyze Singer and his theory, by strongly arguing that famine should be given moral worth. A stance is made that if you are aware of suffering that is going on elsewhere than it is your responsibility to do something about it. He points out that it doesn’t matter if anyone else is helping nor does it matter the distance. Singer does make some good points, however, these do not come without objections.

In Peter Singer’s 1972 article titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he suggests that wealthy nations have an ethical duty to contribute much more than they do to other nations who are suffering through a natural disaster, extreme poverty, famine or other issues. In this paper, I will describe Singers objective and give his argument with regards to this issue. I will describe three counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he addresses, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counterarguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal utility and also differentiate how it pertains to his argument. I will compare how the ideas of duty and charity alter in his suggested world. To conclude, I

I ought to prevent the bad because the mere presence of others does not lessen my duty. The inactions of others have no bearing on what I must do. And, every person in this case has an equal obligation to save the child’s life.

In this excerpt from, The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer, he argues that it is immoral for people doing well to stand by why the unfortunate suffers. In his excerpt, he attacks his readers with scenarios to test their morality. As his argument continues he presents jaw-dropping data to the reader on poverty and affluence. Then he leaves his readers with premises to the conclusion of his argument. First premise: Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. Second premise: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything nearly as important, it is wrong not to do so. Third premise: By donating to aid agencies, you can prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter,

Poverty is the most prevalent issue in the world. There are numerous causes of poverty, and countless issues that result from it. Poverty is defined as the state of being extremely poor. This definition varies depending on who you are asking, and what part of the world they live in. There are multiple definitions of poverty, but there are even more opinions on how it should be solved. Peter Singer believes that whatever money you are spending on luxuries should be given away(Singer).While I believe the more fortunate should give, I also believe that poverty in America is extremely exaggerated compared to other counttries thorughout the world, and there are many issues throughout Singer’s argument that simply cannot be solved.

In the first article, “The Obligation to Assist”, Singer believes if we as a society or as individuals can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, we should always do it. He uses a metaphor to put his position into words, he explains that if he were to see a child drowning he has a moral conscious to help the child, but would he have the obligation? Relating to his metaphor, he applies this concept to people living in poverty. People continue to live in absolute poverty, although, if society lived by the aforementioned principle people would assist the poor, as poverty is bad. Therefore, we should prevent at least some poverty. Through this theory, implications can be drawn out from

Certainly, the world presented by Singer (1972) differs considerably from the real order of things. In the real world, charity is not considered as a moral duty. Rather, it is a voluntary act of generosity, which is subject to public approval and praise. This position favors many society members, who can use charity as an instrument of manipulation to achieve their own purposes. Meanwhile, a consensus is emerging that charity is a negative phenomenon, which does not allow changing the situation from within. According to BBC (n.d.), charity deals with the symptoms, rather than causes, of poverty and famines. It

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.

Throughout this paper, Singer makes many valid points, and I believe that he is correct in comparing the two different occurrences. Standing by either situation and not doing anything is morally wrong. “It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I should never know, ten thousand miles away” (Singer, 2). Even though it does not make it correct, I believe that people use the distance as the excuse of why they do not help with the situation.

This illustrates that as long as we are not in calamitous jeopardy of being harmed or threatened, we have a moral obligation to help out others. The essay question contains the word “morality”; defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary as “pertaining or relating to the conscience or moral sense or to the general principles of right conduct”. Morals may be based on each perspective and their conscience, thus one may argue that their state of mind and their moral upbringing does not conform to those of others thus they see it as no moral obligation to assist other human beings; whether in the same country or not. But it should be realized that we live in a world that contains so many life threatening circumstances and other events that require assistance from others; therefore as human beings, we cannot sit back and watch as these negative circumstances continue to rapidly unfold.