Peter Singer Famine

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.

He also presents the question would someone feel more obligated to save the drowning child if more people were around yet no one was doing anything? He compares this analogy to the view that “numbers lessen obligation”, which he thinks is absurd. To further with this view, Singer says “The view that numbers do make a difference can be made plausible if stated in this way: if everyone in circumstances like mine gave £5 to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees; there is no reason why I should give more than anyone else in the same circumstances as I am; therefore I have no obligation to give more than £5 (Famine, Affluence and Morality)”. This is his way of saying, if you want to make it that numbers do in fact make a difference, what’s your response to if we all just donate a little bit of money? He almost makes fun of the idea that people would use that as a reason not to help someone out who needs it more than we do. He says “ and everyone else in similar circumstances ought to give as much as possible, that is, at least up to the point at which by giving more one would begin to cause serious suffering for oneself and one's dependents (Famine, Affluence, and Morality)”.

For example, imagine that I was going to spend £100 on a pair of shoes for myself but instead, decide to give the money to an aid organization. That particular aid project loses 90% of their donations due to administrative costs and inefficiencies and the final £10 results in 5 people in Nigeria receiving malaria injections. These injections prevent malaria and consequently prevent the deaths of these 5 people. In a case like this, the good that is caused in Nigeria- saving 5 lives, outweighs the good that would have occurred if I had spent the money on shoes—the pleasure I would have received from new shoes, regardless of the high rate of ineffectiveness. What is important to Singer, is whether the bad that is be prevented by one’s actions outweighs whatever inconvenience which may be involved in carrying out the action and that is the case in this example and is also the case for many affluent citizens today.

While the drowning child example can be overlooked as a casual example and that Singer made several more arguments for his principles through this essay, the assumption is correct, however the example separates itself from the case of a disaster in an exotic land, and demonstrates his principles with a subject that everyone can relate to and understand the premise of money and foreign aid. If we treated all crises equally as in the drowning child scenario, factors like money wouldn’t matter, in a purely utilitarian sense, the object is the reduction of suffering.

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

In his article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer tries to emphasize the importance of helping those in need. He believes that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything else of moral importance then we have a moral obligation to do it. (Singer, 231). By this, Singer means that each and every one of us has the power to prevent the terrible things that negatively affects the world. For example, if we are in a situation where we have the ability to prevent something morally wrong from happening but we let it pass by, he describes this as not just laziness but moral wrongdoing. Singer argues if you come across a child who is drowning and it is easy to wade in and rescue the child but by

In this light, some may disagree with the examples provided by Kekes(2002),however Singer himself will agree because’ by not giving more than we do, we are allowing those in abject poverty to suffer; however the question is whether there is a moral obligation to do so, and if there is, how strong is this supposed obligation?

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).

The argument made by Peter Singer states “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, [then] without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” The argument the author is presenting is about affluent people, who he assumes have access to the global community, and that they should help the less fortunate within

He states that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.” He persuades that people should help someone if someone is suffering that is comparably significant than the sacrifice they will have to make in order to save someone. For example, our clothes will get wet if we save a drowning child. A drowning child could end up to death if nobody saves him. Obviously, the death is more significant than our clothes get wet; therefore, we have moral obligation to save him even though our clothes will get wet. In order to consolidate his premise, Singer proposed two statements to support his principles; he suggests that distance and the existence of other people who could help are not the factors that matter our moral obligation. We should always help as much as we can if the action is considered as morally

In his article, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer gives a solution to help poor people around the world especially children. One important idea from his article is that people need to donate by all their extra money. He says: “The formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” It is true that feeling for other’s suffering is important. However, Singer’s argument is not realistic.

“We seem to lack a sound basis for drawing a clear moral line between Bob’s situation and that of any reader of this article with $200 to spare who does not donate it to an overseas aid agency.” (Singer 233) Singer says this is due to the fact that people are aware of what’s going on overseas, but choose to spend their money elsewhere. Both Bob not flipping the switch and the consequence of people not donating to help poor children result in children dying. Singer, being a utilitarian ethicist, believes that the consequence of an action determines whether it is right or wrong.

Morality is one of the most fascinating aspects of humanity. It is often treated as the one trait that ultimately makes us superior to animals, and yet there is no agreed-upon single moral code. Questions of morality always lead to heated debates and passionate discussions, because every individual has their own values and ethics. Controversy often arises when the topic of the debate concerns inequality and injustice, such as between the rich and the poor. Recently, this type of discussion emerged because of a philosopher called Peter Singer, and book he published. In this paper, I will agree with Singer and argue that in order to live a moral life, one should donate funds to aid agencies, however only when the means are comfortably available.

This essay will analyse philosopher Peter Singer’s argument on the duties that should be allocated to wealthy people in terms of assisting people from undeveloped nations to combat global poverty. In the first section, his argument will be explained and summarized, followed by the second section which will present the minor flaws opposing philosophers find in his argument, however find his overall argument to be valid. Singer’s primary argument on world poverty goes as follows. Singer argues that as humans, we have a moral duty to try to prevent emotional or physical harm being inflicted on others, as long as we aren’t required to sacrifice anything of comparable significance (e.g. harm ourselves to the same degree.) He says, in relation to an analogy presented that requires ‘Bob’ to decide between the life of a child and his precious car, “the point it raises is a serious one: only when the sacrifices become very significant indeed would most people be prepared to say that Bob does nothing wrong when he decides not to throw the switch.”

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