Famine, Affluence and Morality by Peter Singer

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.

Peter Singer’s utilitarian views are seen throughout the essay on “Famine, Affluence and Morality” as he puts forward a solid argument for affluent people to give all their excess to the suffering people in need. Through his intensive opinions and broad examples he comes to the conclusion of: It is within our means to prevent something bad from happening without causing any harm to happen to us, then we are morally obligated to do so. This is a very strong conclusion than not everyone can agree on which is what this essay while be about, to critically analyse and evaluate his main argument.

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.

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

Singer says that when individuals are starving, it is immoral to have such things such as stylish clothes, expensive dinners, a sophiscated stereo system, overseas holidays and singer undoubtedly intends that a very large majority of people in affluent societies is immoral; and most people above the poverty level and many below it spends money on things that are not necessities. (p, 509)

Peter Singer famine relief argument, demonstrates big moral questions to our old-fashioned notions of giving towards charity. Human beings have a moral obligation to donate more resources to those who are in need. (Singer, p 235).

The argument made by Peter Singer states “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, [then] without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” The argument the author is presenting is about affluent people, who he assumes have access to the global community, and that they should help the less fortunate within

As long as the human race has been on this Earth there have always been those who are above the rest with their wealth and prosperity and those who are poor and could use a hand. With this rises the dilemma of whether it is a moral obligation for those who are wealthy to lend a helping hand to the hungry people that are less fortunate than them. That brings the question of what would this moral obligation be; would it be something that we perceive as being the correct thing to do or an actual obligation that is required of us. The two men whose articles I will be discussing today have differing views when it comes to this subject. On one hand we have Garrett Hardin who believes that aiding the poor is the wrong course of action. We then have Peter Singer who believes that is should be an obligation for all of us to help those in need. While Garrett Hardin makes a strong argument as to why we should not provide aid to the poor it is Peter Singer’s argument that gives a more compelling reason as to why it is right for us to aid those in need.

Imagine living in a run-down village, barely enough food or water to make it through a single day. You must fight for your life day after day, provided with no other options. This is what millions go through each day, yet most of us rarely give it a single thought. We are given a blessed, fortunate life, provided with food, water, shelter, an education, job opportunities, and so much more. Yet very few of us do anything to help less fortunate people. Peter Singer argues that all extra money not spent on necessities should be donated to the less fortunate. While I agree that we should be assisting 3rd world countries, I also believe that some of this money should be kept for the person who earned it.

The world today is composed of two extreme societal positions: the affluent and those who are stricken by poverty. Despite these class distinctions, there is one overbearing law that governs all- morality. In Peter Singer’s essay “On Poverty” he states that those who spend their surplus wealth on luxury, instead of donating to those suffering from poverty, are morally indecent. Although morality of the offender and the bystander may be equal, Singer’s accusation of Americans being selfish is stereotypical and the task of removing all hard-earned wealth is arduous and unrealistic.

In Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, he describes how he believes everyone’s approach to global poverty should be. He starts by describing how people in many places in the world are dying from hunger, having no shelter or access to medical care. Other people have the ability to stop this from happening if they make the right decisions. He compares Britain’s use of money, using three times more for certain projects than they’ve used to give to the needy, which he says shows they care more about these projects than those lives. He then says that he’s going to argue why this is wrong, and how affluent countries should be using their money and why. First he says that dying from starvation or lack of food is bad, a premise we should all accept for one reason or another. His next point is that if we have the power to prevent something bad without sacrificing something of equal or greater value, then we have the moral obligation to do it. He compares this to a child drowning in a pond, you have the obligation to go and pull the child out of the pond and help them, your clothes will get wet and dirty, but this is insignificant compared to the child’s death. He then

On one hand, Singer believes that people should give almost half of their wealth to overseas operations to end hunger. On the other hand, Woollard believes that making regular payments to overseas operations to end hunger is a much better and much more realistic approach to the problem. She distinguished that Singer’s pond example of the moral responsibilities of saving a kid drowning is contrary to Singer’s beliefs that it is similar to programs like UNICEF sending envelopes to people and asking for money. Woollard’s two main points are Singer’s Extreme Demand is too much and that famine is subject to moral relevance. One of the flaws in Singer’s argument that was discovered by Woollard is that there must be a restriction of some sort to the amount of aid

Singer in his book “The Life You Can Save” wrote that : “…when we spend our surplus on concerts or fashionable shoes, on fine dining and good wines, or on holidays in faraway lands, we are doing something wrong” (Singer, “The Life You Can Save” 18). He means that if we are spending our surplus on ourselves, on our pleasure and happiness, for us these luxuries are worth more than a child's life. Singer tries to persuade people that they should give up extra money that they have in order to help other people. He demands people to put interests of others before their own. His argument is too extreme, because it is an unrealistic that people will sacrifice their all luxuries, to which they are accustomed, to help to a

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.