Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer

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.

     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.

Peter Singer’s argument over the immoral spending of the average American is presented in his piece “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” through two analogies. He compares both situations against each other, as well as to the real life situation of most Americans. His first analogy involves a woman named Dora who delivers a boy for $1000 and then uses said money to purchase a nice TV. However the boy’s life is put in jeopardy and she is compelled to rescue the boy. Singer introduces the idea that she could’ve spent that money on herself in many extravagant ways, and states that many Americans do this already. He addresses that Dora is in fact unlike most Americans in that most Americans do not directly cause the misfortune

In his essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, philosopher Peter Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate all their income not required for necessities to overseas help organizations. His article, published on September 5, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, poses several hypothetical and dramatized situations which he uses as comparisons concerning Americans who do not donate their excess income. Singer breaks down how much it takes to specifically save a single child. The use of his precise language within the text establishes a strong tone and voice to let his readers know he’s serious.

In the Peter Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, he discusses the way that people should take moral in their help toward the support of the Bengal famine crisis. Singer states three obligations that would help the Bengal region through the means of a wealthy person, and those individuals living life on a day to day basis. In this paper I will expound on Singer’s goal for each obligation, explain the three counter-arguments with Singer’s response, define and identify marginal utility as it relates to Singer’s arguments, and compare the ideas of duty

In his essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer talks about the need to help other countries who are suffering. He says “As I write this, in November 1971, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.” Singer was making the point that while richer countries are spending money on pointless things, people in poorer countries are dying. In Garrett Hardin’s, Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor, he talks about who should be saved first, the rich or the poor?

41 million people struggle with hunger in the United States, including 13 million children. Even in the world’s greatest food-producing nation, children and adults face poverty and hunger in every state across the U.S.. It is a black plague that twists itself around the American people scattered all over the country. Because poverty is a huge regularity shared and ignored, should the people be responsible for the removal of hunger and poverty in the United States of America? Should the American people ignore the brethren who fall because of this disease?

I selected the article Famine, Affluence and Morality written by Peter Singer concerning the moral obligation of affluent people to those with a lesser stature in life. In the following paper, I shall reconstruct his argument concerning said obligation. I shall utilize critical thinking to articulate a more focused account of his argument and my criticisms against it.

Singer makes the argument that many western nations, without great pain or deprivation to themselves, have the economic capacity to save the lives of the 9 million Bengal refugees suffering displacement and starvation. Because they have this capacity, Singer contents, they also have the moral obligation to act on said capacity. Singer notes that many wealthy

Peter singer is a an Australian moral philosopher who wrote, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” In the article that singer wrote, he talks about a couple of points in which we should follow in the modern world. Singer brings up the main situation going on right now, all around the world. People that are dying because of lack of food, shelter, and medical attention is bad. Singer believes that if we can do something that prevent from happening without sacrificing anything, then do it.

Singer in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty” provides a solution for solving the issue of poverty by donating all excess money for the needs of poor people. He urges readers that everyone, who have sufficient household income, is required to give away all their unnecessary money to overseas aid organizations. Moreover, he argues that if people fail to do so, they are living unworthy immoral lives (5). In this paper I will argue that by giving extreme examples and information of aid agencies Singer makes us feel forced in donation of excess money, whereas this action should be voluntary and it should not be considered if we are not willing to give away all excess

Singer’s arguments rest on the simple assumption that suffering, from lack of basic resources, is bad. Accordingly, his argument is that the way people in prosperous countries respond to situations like that in Bengal is not morally justified. His argument is that if we have the power to prevent bad situations from occurring, “without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,” (Singer, 231) then we have a moral obligation to do so. In order to get people to give the appropriate amount of money Singer insinuates that the social distinction between duty and charity must be reconsidered. Moreover, charity should no longer be seen as a supererogatory act, or rather an act that is socially perceived as virtuous but has no social consequences if ignored. Thus, his

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

Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.