In Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, And Morality?

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.

It is a common and universal fact that different persons and different societies are better off than others. It would be rare, if not impossible, to find one opposed to this statement. However, despite mankind acknowledging this terrible truth, there is widespread debate as to what each individual’s moral obligations are on this matter. Should everyone impart of their wealth to those they do not know, yet who may be in need? Are we letting people die by not giving of our surplus? Two authors, Jan Narveson and Peter Singer, have both addressed this issue. Based on a religious background, I believe we are obligated to give to the poor and hungry, though not to the full extent of Singer’s view.

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.

In Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," the author elucidates the lucid affair to end world hunger by changing the mindset of the masses. First, Singer adopts what he believes is a universal assumption that everyone would agree that world hunger is good by any means, thusly so, he proposes that, considering that many people make more than enough to fulfill their needs, we should all give a piece of our pie to those who are in more dire need. Singer justifies these set actions he is urging that he is urging us to do by stating 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."(Cahn,263) He directs our attention to

Everyone should have the right to live a stable life with all the necessary essentials, which include food, shelter, and medical care. Unfortunately, not every individual in our world has access to either one or all of these essential life elements. In Peter Singer’s essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer emphasizes the importance of giving back to those who are less fortunate. Singer in particular claims that those who are affluent individuals should feel morally obligated to donate to humanitarian causes.

Singer’s main argument in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, is that the manner in which we conduct ourselves morally needs to change. The author holds that if it is within our power to prevent a bad event from taking place without sacrificing anything else of moral importance, or without causing something equally bad to happen, then we are morally obligated to react and prevent it (Singer 231). According to him, we all have the power and the means to prevent bad situations from affecting people across the world no matter how helpless we feel. Singer provides an example where a person is placed in a situation where they can prevent something bad from happening

Peter Singer famine relief argument, demonstrates big moral questions to our old-fashioned notions of giving towards charity. Human beings have a moral obligation to donate more resources to those who are in need. (Singer, p 235).

Poverty is prevalent throughout the world around us. We watch television and see famous people begging us to sponsor a child for only fifty cents a day. We see images of starving children in faraway countries, and our hearts go out to them. But we really do not know the implications of poverty, why it prevails, or even what we can do to help fight this massive problem in our world. In Peter Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Mortality,” he argues that it is a moral duty for affluent nations to help starving people in distant countries.

As long as the human race has been on this Earth there have always been those who are above the rest with their wealth and prosperity and those who are poor and could use a hand. With this rises the dilemma of whether it is a moral obligation for those who are wealthy to lend a helping hand to the hungry people that are less fortunate than them. That brings the question of what would this moral obligation be; would it be something that we perceive as being the correct thing to do or an actual obligation that is required of us. The two men whose articles I will be discussing today have differing views when it comes to this subject. On one hand we have Garrett Hardin who believes that aiding the poor is the wrong course of action. We then have Peter Singer who believes that is should be an obligation for all of us to help those in need. While Garrett Hardin makes a strong argument as to why we should not provide aid to the poor it is Peter Singer’s argument that gives a more compelling reason as to why it is right for us to aid those in need.

Morality In the following paper, I will argue that we have no moral obligation to take drastic steps to prevent suffering in all cases. Through the objections of cogent knowledge and moral principle, I will prove Singer’s argument to be invalid. In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer works to argue that people that live in affluent countries must change their ways of life in a radical way as well as their conception of morality.

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

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,”

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 said; “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” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.