Peter Singer: Famine, Affluence, and Morality Essay

Kai Nielsen defended consequentialism and showed how it can still agree with commonsense, deontological convictions in his article “Traditional Morality and Utilitarianism.” His article focused on closing the gulf between consequentialism and deontology by showing how closely they can agree, and he further evaluated the systems and found that consequentialism as he sees it should be practiced is morally superior to traditional deontology. First, this essay will explain his argument that consequentialism squares with the commonsense convictions of deontology, and second, it will show how Nielsen arrived at the conclusion that consequentialism is a good moral system

In Peter Singer 1972 article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” He offers a situational thought experiment in which he makes you question your moral values. It goes like this, imagine you’re walking to class and you are feeling good about how great you looked in your brand new $200 shoes. You pass by this pond and noticed that there is a small child drowning and realize there isn’t much time to call anyone for help. You could stride into the water and pull her to safety, but If you take the time to remove your shoes and it’ll be too late. The second option is that you jump in knowing that the muddy water would ruin the new shoes. Singer goes on by saying that he’s sure that we would all give the same answer and jump in and save the girl

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.

“Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes one’s duty to do a particular action just because the action, itself, is inherently right and not through any other sorts of calculations – such as the consequences of the action” (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). In many aspects deontology is contrasted with utilitarianism. Deontology is based upon principle and does not calculate the consequences (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). Deontology attracts those seeking a stronger moral attraction because it refers to commanding rather than commending and commanding is a stronger structure (Boylan, 2009, p. 172). The

     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 contrast with deontology, there is utilitarianism, which is a consequentialist theory. Utilitarianists consider consequences to be an important indicator of the moral value of one’s actions (Rich, 2008). In consequentialist analyses, conclusions about what is right or wrong are based on the consequences (Tanner et al., 2008). Utilitarianism is to promote the greatest good for the greatest amount of people that is possible in situations.

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,

Peter Singer’s utilitarian views are seen throughout the essay on “Famine, Affluence and Morality” as he puts forward a solid argument for affluent people to give all their excess to the suffering people in need. Through his intensive opinions and broad examples he comes to the conclusion of: It is within our means to prevent something bad from happening without causing any harm to happen to us, then we are morally obligated to do so. This is a very strong conclusion than not everyone can agree on which is what this essay while be about, to critically analyse and evaluate his main argument.

Jimmy carter once said, "We know that a peaceful world cannot long exist, one-third rich and two-thirds hungry." With the world now more interconnected than ever there might be a solution to world hunger by distribution of wealth. Peter Singer, in his article titled, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, takes this concept of unity that we have on a global scale and tries to tackle the issue of world hunger. Before we dive into the article we will focus on utilitarianism to help us understand his perspective better. Following, we will analyze Singer and his theory, by strongly arguing that famine should be given moral worth. A stance is made that if you are aware of suffering that is going on elsewhere than it is your responsibility to do something about it. He points out that it doesn’t matter if anyone else is helping nor does it matter the distance. Singer does make some good points, however, these do not come without objections.

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.

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 the “Famine, Affluence and Morality” Peter Singer argued that individuals are morally obligated to grant most of their belongings to famines. He puts his argument as following. “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without derby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” (Singer,454) John Arthur’s objection to this theory is that Singer’s second premise which he calls “greater moral evil principle” is not the whole picture and does not consider entitlement of individuals. He explains that Singer’s claim that great moral evil principle “explains our felling or that it appears uncontroversial” (singer, 454) is not sufficient since moral equality is also important.

The deontological view is about the motivation of any action and cautiously conscious of how these actions are carried out. In contrast, the teleological approach focuses more on end results and can potentially ignore the setbacks and negative aspects of the process that leads to said results. It is the deontological view that places a considerable emphasis on duty in terms of moral decision making. The ends do not justify means—an approach that is disregarded by the teleological view that accepts all means necessary for a desired consequence (Newton, 2008). In this scenario of

The subject of suffering has been a discussion of debate among numerous philosophers for many decades. In the article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer forms two theoretical scenarios to encourage readers to consider their obligations in aiding children in need; in the poem “Musee des Beaux Arts,” by W.H. Auden, employs the use of two paintings to illustrate the indifference of humanity to individual suffering. At first, readers will say that both pieces are noticeably different in terms of selflessness, but a thorough inspection of both works uncovers a misleading truth that imply controversial opinions on the issue. The usage of imaginary incidents in both writings contain problems of distortion of actuality. The inaccurate evidence will likely trigger readers to be inclined to reach deceptive assumptions in regards to the author's proposed solutions.