Famine Influence 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.

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.

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 main argument is built upon the “assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (231). It is the duty of the utilitarian to attempt to relieve this type of suffering. His standpoint is that people should attempt to prevent bad things from happening: “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” (231). Singer contends that this is largely an uncontroversial principle since it only requires that people do not make undue sacrifices in order to promote the greater good. The example he gives to demonstrate his point is that of walking past a shallow pond and seeing a child drowning. To save the child, all that is required is for a person to get a little muddy or damp. For an immaterial sacrifice, something very bad is being prevented and therefore there should be no debate about a person’s actions.

Accepting the three premises seems to require us to reconsider the meaning of charity and duty. The obligation to give as much as we can becomes a matter of duty not charity. This upends the notion where charitable giving to those in need is praiseworthy, but failure is not to be condemned. By the force of Singer’s argument, failure to give is wrong because we must do everything in our power to direct every extra resource to those suffering from death and starvation. This changes our conception of giving from optional to obligatory. For example, it would wrong to buy a new shirt or enjoy a fine meal instead of giving to famine relief. Singer’s conclusion is simply This

Utilitarianism is the moral theory which proposes that the best and correct course of action to take is that which will maximize happiness and minimize suffering. In relation to world poverty, it would seem that the most appropriate action to take from a utilitarianism perspective would be something akin to what utilitarian Peter Singer

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.

Famine, Affluence, and Morality is a well-known article written by Peter Singer that was published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1972. Peter Singer is an Australian utilitarian philosopher, and in Famine, Affluence, and Morality he argues that more fortunate people should be required to help those in need or at least give significantly more than what is currently being given. The essay focuses on the Great Bengal Famine that occurred in 1971, Singer mentions how reluctant the western world was to aid those in need and he blames it on the fact that it was a crisis that was happening far away from the western world. One of Singer’s main points is, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing

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, a prominent moral philosopher and public intellectual, has written at length about many ethical issues. He subscribes to utilitarianism, which is the position that the best moral action is that which maximizes the well-being of conscious entities; this view is made apparent through his writings. In his essay What Should a Billionaire Give—and What Should You? Singer presents the idea that although the rich are capable of mitigating extreme poverty, there has been little improvement for the poorest 10 percent of the world’s population. He maintains that all life is equal and, therefore, saving the lives of the poor is a moral imperative for those who can afford to. “We are far from acting in accordance to that belief,”

Singer use the faulty view of utilarianism, so he thinks that we maximize our happiness. He says we’re rich and have to give mony to poor nations, and that we have to keep giving until we’re dead. This is completely unreasonable, and I know Singer is wrong. Why? First of all, because he’s just trying to make me feel guilty. What is he doing for world hunger. If he’s not giving, I’m not gonna either.

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

Addressed in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer’s full assertion is that, it is morally wrong for people to spend money on morally insignificant things instead of spending money to prevent suffering and dying from preventable diseases and famine. He begins his argument with the first premise: “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”(231) Such premise is direct, simple, accepted by most people in the society. Peter Singer hence take such assumption as accepted by the readers and quickly moves to his next premise.

In this paper I will begin by explaining Singer’s utilitarian argument in “The Life You Can Save” regarding the obligation of affluent nations to give in order to alleviate global poverty. Secondly, I will analyze one objection to Singer’s argument that opposes charity. Thirdly, after examining the objection to Singer’s argument, I will present Singer’s noteworthy reply. Finally, after offering both an objection to Singer’s argument, as well as Singer’s rebuttal, I will offer my own view on whether or not Singer’s refutation is convincing.