I.Introduction. Famine Is A Highly Prevalent And Debated

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.

Singer’s argument to world famine is giving charity is neither charitable nor generosity, but it’s an obligation to give money out and if you don’t, then it’s morally wrong. He states we as individuals have a duty to help reduce poverty and death because of starvation. Singer argues, suffering and death due to the lack of food, is terrible. Hence we have the power to help those group of people. By that, people can cut down the famine and suffering by giving famine relief and in doing so, we as individuals have to give a certain amount of money from our standard of living. This fails to recognize people’s own intrinsic moral values because Singer says we must always make the morally best decision.

Prevention-Principle: If we can prevent something bad from happening, then we ought to do it, unless we are thereby sacrificing something of comparable moral importance.

Mill argues that all sources “of human suffering are in a great degree, many of them almost entirely, conquerable by human care and effort” (Mill 15). Through this statement, Mill and Singer’s perspectives realign. Singer states that “if we stopped feeding animals on grains and soybeans, the amount of food saved would-- if distributed to those who need it-- be more than enough to end hunger throughout the world” (Singer 220). Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent nations, who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. Singer furthermore argues that we could provide contraceptives to poor nations to slow their birth rates (Singer 241). By evenly distributing food and slowly the birth rate, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist.

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.

Example is as follows, Assume you are walking past a shallow pond and discover a child drowning in it; you ought pull the child out. This may ruin the cloths or delay you from your commitments however that would be insignificant if you compare of losing the life of the child.

Peter Singer Article “ Famine, Affluence and Morality gives the claim that the current institutions in affluent countries involved in providing aid to those in need are broken. Singer argues that nations that have wealth need to completely change the way they interpret pleasure and happiness. His example in this argument is the famine in Bengal in the 70’s, which gave a visual and real world example to the suffering he’s discussed in this article, he makes a real case of inequality to the emphasis of personal pleasures and moral obligations to our fellow man with economics facts, more money was spent on the happiness of people within close proximity to each other than to those out of sight and out of mind.

Most people here in America love to drive nice expensive cars, live in big beautiful homes, and spend their money as they please. In his essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer argues that we can save children’s lives by donating to those in need because “so much of our income is spent on things not essential to the preservation of our lives and health” (9). We should refrain from buying anything that is not essential so that we can help hungry children overseas.

One of the points absent from Singers argument is by helping to prevent poverty in the world may in some way, lead to greater suffering in the future; so we ought to adopt a policy to manage the use of resources we will need in the future. Singer’s conclusions are also supported by the ideas that help to form the rational of a utilitarian "to change our public ethics so that... giving something significant to those in extreme poverty becomes an elementary part of what it is to live an ethical life" while such ideas may be ethical they may not belong to everyone (Taylor,

Poverty is spread across the entire world devastating lives and taking others. Although this intensity of debt is often overlooked affecting all ages, races, and genders. With over 1.2 billion people in extreme poverty living under $1 a day, and millions more under the poverty line our economy continues to fall(Facts on Poverty). In result, society finds problems including government corruption, lack of technological advancement, employment loss, and unsustainable quality of life throughout the community. We must consider the creation of new charitable systems to decrease this plague throughout the world and persuade others to help out in this harsh situation. In addition, the spread of wealth will not only convince other to donate, but will

- If you have the power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing 
anything of comparable moral importance you morally ought to do it.

In accordance to a potentially tragic situation, Singer believes that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.” For example, if one were to see someone tied to train tracks with an oncoming train, it is in our moral ability to prevent the incident if it is possible. Although if we are aware of an incident yet we are certain we would not make it back alive either, we are not obligated to prevent it. It comes down to the individual of wether or not they are willing to sacrifice their life. There are many questions one may consider as they decide what they will do. Do I love this person enough to die for them? If we are a community, are we expected to love and care for everyone in our community just as much? This, in turn complicates our expectations of what our sense community

Personally I will never believe in the "Greater Good" as an excuse to set aside one's moral obligations.

(S2) If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable importance, it is wrong not to do so.