Famine, Affluence and Morality by Peter Singer

1486 WordsJan 29, 20186 Pages
In his own essay “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Peter Singer puts forth some compelling arguments for affluent people to give what they have in excess, to the suffering people of the world. Before any criticism is made, here is the argument: - There are people suffering and dying from lack of food, shelter and medical care. - People suffering and dying from lack of food, shelter and medical care is bad. - If you have the power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing 
anything of comparable moral importance you morally ought to do it. - Affluent people in the world have excess money and luxuries that could help prevent 
suffering. - Distance makes no difference in whether or not you ought to help someone in need. Therefore, affluent people morally ought to give up their luxuries and instead send money not needed for necessities to feed those suffering from starvation, wherever they may be. It is easy to agree with the premises that he puts forth, but it is hard to agree with his final conclusion. For example, the first two that he talks about are pretty easy and straightforward to understand. The third argument, may be a little harder to fully capture which is why he aids his argument with an example: to imagine a child drowning in a pond that you are walking by. You could either prevent the child from death by jumping into the pond and rescuing him or her, or you could keep walking by so as not to get your clothes wet and dirty. Anyone can see
Open Document