Famine Affluence And Morality Analysis

All living things need four basic elements for survival: food, water, shelter, and fire. There are portions of the world that have difficulty finding some or all of these four basic elements for survival. The United States is the top affluent country in the world, which often creates issues regarding morality.

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 Peter Singer’s article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he proposes the question: “What are the moral implications of a situation like the one in Bengal (230)?” In order to answer this question Singer presents at least two arguments which involve what one ought to do and the moral consequences of not acting or pursuing our moral obligations. His first and central conclusion is that we “ought” to behave in such a way as to decrease suffering and death as a result of lack of food, shelter and medical care. Assuming that the aforementioned events are “bad” Peter singer argues that we are morally obligated to help “relieve great suffering of the sort that occurs as a result of famine or other disasters” as long as “we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance” (238). In fact, he goes so far as to present an additional conclusion that not acting or pursuing our moral obligation to help is unjustifiable and wrong and we must then change our moral schema about the obligations we have to others.

     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.

We all heard countless solutions on how to solve world poverty. In Peter Singer’s article “Rich and Poor”, he discusses how he thinks this problem can be fixed. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty. Singer believes that poverty could be fixed if people give up their luxuries and give the money that they spent on unnecessary things to those who are destitute. In Singer 's mind, we all have a duty to give until we are no longer able to, or until the problem with the world poverty will be solved. Singer feels that it is necessary for people who are more wealthy to help those who are less fortunate by donating money right away to organizations that help fight poverty. In his opinion, by not helping those in need we are negatively responsible for their suffering and thus failing to live a moral life.

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

Before enrolling in Ethics and Society at Texas State University, I considered myself to be educated about my own decisions and my reasoning for why I think the way I do. Although I assumed I had my morals figured out, I never reflected on the aspect of whether or not it was moral to help one in need. I always understood if someone needed help, it was best to assist in whatever way I could. But after reading John Kekes “On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine,” I now think that it should be reconsidered, depending on the given circumstance, if the person deserves to receive the help. I will explain why John Kekes article changed my perspective on the issue of famine relief throughout the following paper.

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.

During the time of World War I, the United States was dealing with a lot of internal problems. At the time before the war, Darwinism is very prominent. The working class looked to those in poverty as if they were the scum of the earth. Then there was the gospel of wealth. The gospel of wealth believed the things that you have is a divine blessing and has favor in the eyes of God (Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, & Hartmann, 2014, p.563). While the working class enjoyed themselves those in poverty was trying to make a living. Those in poverty could of ran to a settlement house. Settlement houses were sent up in poor neighborhoods to help with the progressivism (Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, & Hartmann, 2014, p.563). Jane Adams and Lillian Wald started the profession of social work by living amongst the less fortunate and helping them get to where they were (Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, & Hartmann, 2014, p.563).

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.

Peter Singer is often regarded as one of the most productive and influential philosophers of modern times. He is well-known for his discussions of the acute social, economic, and political issues, including poverty and famines. In his “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer (1972) discusses the problem of poverty and hunger, as well as the way this problem is treated in the developed world. Singer believes that charity is inseparable from morality, and no distinction can be drawn between charity and duty. The philosopher offers possible objections to his proposition and relevant arguments to justify his viewpoint. The modern world does not support Singer’s view, treating charity as a voluntary activity, an act of generosity that needs

Poverty, it is an unfortunate circumstance that happens from the town you live in, to the other side of the globe. About 1.4 billion people are currently living in extreme poverty across the globe, that is roughly 20% of the world’s population (Singer 9). I will begin this essay by summarizing and explaining Peter Singer’s, an Australian ethic philosopher, basic argument that it is immoral not to give to effective charities, an idea I agree with. After that, I will bring to attention two objections to this argument and show how these objections fail.

Stories and scenarios also offer insight as to how we, as a society, should stand up against poverty and help the impoverished. Peter Singer’s examples from “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” shed light on how our world would benefit if each person gave up their luxuries to aid others in need. In one of his many solutions, Singer states that those who generate income and exceed the funds needed for basic necessities wrongfully indulge in luxuries and spend their money on themselves. His statements firmly state that we need to take action as a whole, because if one person decides they do not need to save that life, then the entire system is skewed. He argues that by not using those funds towards helping a save the life of a sick child overseas, our society lacks basic morals. As he concludes this specific story, he states, “...if we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money” (Singer). Similarly in “Lifeboat Ethics,” Garrett Hardin discusses the

Have you ever stopped to think about all the general essentials you have access to and all the material possessions you have been blessed with? Often times I see people around me who seem unhappy with what they do have. There is nothing wrong with wanting or buying more than what we need; luxuries are nice. The problem comes in when we only think about ourselves and not about other people. Some people can hardly meet the basic needs such as food, water, clothing, and a place to live; but yet how often do we stop to acknowledge this problem going on in the world around us? I believe I have a moral obligation to the poor because I have been blessed