Essay Famine Relief

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.

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,

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.

In this paper I will defend John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert against Peter Singer’s theory of our duty to the global poor. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the tens of thousands of children under the age of 5 who die everyday from starvation and treatable disease. It seems natural that we as citizens of a first world country have a duty to help the global poor through charity. However that “duty” is vague and is under heavy moral debate. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the global poor. However, this rightful duty should not necessarily live up to the extreme and overwhelming expectations of Peter Singer. John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert is more realistic, logical, and more applicable to the world we live in today.

The article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer highlights the death and suffering that occurred in East Bengal in 1971 due to lack of food, shelter, and medical care (Singer 231). The author points out that poverty, civil war, and a cyclone all combined to make the situation worse for about nine million people inhabiting the area at the time, but if the richer nations came in and provided assistance, further suffering would have been alleviated. This essay provides an argument as to why famine victims should be given aid and explains how doing so affects our understanding of the distinction between charity and duty. It also offers a critique of Singer’s argument based on John Arthur’s idea of “just deserts” from his article entitled Famine relief and the Ideal Moral Code.

Have you ever thought why it’s good to help starving people in the world? No? Well, the first thing is.. Do you know how many people die of starvation each year? Well, at least 9 million people die of starvation each year worldwide. Also, at least 1 child dies of starvation each 10 seconds of your day. Wouldn't you want to save starving people in the world that need to be fed and cared?

Throughout the history of mankind the human race has faced the devastation of famines. Canada recognizes the need for the international community to stop famines from becoming a recurring theme. According to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Reference Table (the standard used by the UN), famine occurs when three of the following conditions occur: 20 percent of the population has fewer than 2,100 kilocalories of food a day, 30 percent of children are acutely malnourished, two deaths per 10,000 people, or four deaths per 10,000 children per day, pandemic illness, access to less than four liters of water per day, large-scale displacement, civil

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 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

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.

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.

While the number of individuals living in food insecurity worldwide has dropped significantly over the past decade, there still remains an estimated 805 million people continuing to struggle with hunger every day . The suffering and death that are occurring in these developing nations is not fated, nor inescapable. Countries rife with dissolution, unrelenting poverty, abrasive environmental factors, and lifetimes of economic uncertainty have continued to force millions of men, women, and children into impoverished refugees. Indian economist and humanitarian philosopher Amartya Sen attempts to shed light on the origins of the global hunger situation in his work Poverty and Famines, asserting that famines are caused not by the conventional belief of food shortages, but by how a community’s food is distributed. While crop scarcity, diminished imports, and times of drought are often contributing factors, it is the social systems of the community itself that should be given greater attention. Today, Sen’s work still remains relevant, as humanitarian activists in organizations that focus on eradicating world hunger must heed his advice on better redistribution tactics should they wish to prove successful in their cause. While Sen’s understanding of the famine crisis pertains to a number of communities currently living in starvation, his call for developed redistribution systems fails to apply in communist authoritarian regimes such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea