Famine, Affluence, And Morality

In Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal

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.

Peter Singer defends that we “ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance (Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code pg. 813)”. He believes that we should donate at least half of our earnings to people in absolute poverty, which in this case means poverty by any standard. He also says we should help out people in other countries before we help out our own neighbor. “The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have

     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.

When natural disasters hit an area, the only way to relieve major suffering is with the help of foreign aid. Major suffering from lack of food, shelter, and medical aid in developing countries is an easily avoidable dilemma. I will present you with Peter Singers’ Basic Argument regarding our moral obligation to relieve suffering that he presents in his paper “Famine, Affluence and Mortality”. There are two problems of spatial distance and shared obligations that help to show the universality of Singer’s Prevention-Principle. Then there are three questions Kekes asks Singer in his paper “On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine” regarding the Prevention-Principle. He displays potential problems for the current principle as described by Singer. The revised version of the principle, after considering the problems, does not support Singer’s original conclusion. In Affluent Countries we should drastically change our moral conceptual schemes and give up luxuries to provide aid to those in developing nations.

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.

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.

Singer provides the statistical data to strengthen his argument and claims that one third of annual income of the Americans is spent on unnecessities (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 1). In Unger's research, Singer found out that $200 could save one child's life ( Singer, “The Singer Solution” 2). What is $200 for us compared with the children’s lives? It is nothing. The author emphasizes that we spend the same amount of money when we dine out at an expensive restaurant. Instead of going to restaurant, we could do something better with our money and save a child. But there are a lot of suffering children all over the world, who also deserve to live. The author, furthermore, encourages people does not stop at $200 and to donate all excess money from their income: “the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away” (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 4). He provides direct phone numbers of such organizations as UNICEF, Oxfam America that engaged in helping the needy people, thereby showing us that we have all possibilities and information to alleviate needless suffering (Singer, “The Singer Solution” 2). Thus, Peter invokes readers to give up going to restaurants, as well as to give up buying other luxuries so that one child’s life will be saved. He concludes that if we do not sacrifice our

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.

Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent nations who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. By evenly distributing food, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist. However, while both utilitarians promote selflessness as beneficial, they do so from different angles. Singer does not advocate unselfishness to increase our happiness, but because it is morally right. While Mill labels selfishness as the root of unhappiness in humans, Singer states instead that absolute poverty is “the principal cause of human misery” (Singer 220). Thus, Mill encourages unselfishness to end the suffering of the one who gives while Singer encourages it to end the suffering of the one who receives.

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

Singer proposes that “nearly as important” is a vague statement. It connotes that a person cannot say, for example, saving one’s child is more important than saving the lives of multiple children in another country, as a hardened fact. It is perceptibly more important for someone to save his or her child, while to a third party observer more lives saved is morally more important. Therefore, “nearly as important” allows some wiggle room in order to allow people to be honest with themselves about right and wrong. Essentially, Singer says that if an individual has the ability to give, there is no substantial reason not to do so. It is not a question of whether or not to give, but how much.