The Moral Obligation Of An Affluent Lifestyle Without Saving Life

Singer illustrates how when a person is in need or lacking, we should give them a lending hand until they are on their feet. Peter Singer writes about how if one can use their fortune to reduce the suffering of others, without hurting or diminishing the wellbeing of themselves or others, it would be immoral not to do so. The key here would be without diminishing themselves or the wellbeing of others. He states that this duty is equivalent to the saving of a drowning child. He explains how if someone were to see a child drowning in a pond it would be morally wrong to not help the child,

To show that there is little moral relevance between failing to rescue a child at some small cost to yourself, and failing to save a starving child in a faraway country at some similarly small cost I will be exploring an argument proposed by Singer. In doing this I will be looking into his strong and weak principles; how he would apply them and some of the criticisms of his point of view.

In regards to the topic of famine, O’Neill and Singer propose dissimilar perspectives. O’Neill says, “He or she would not be obligated to help the starving, even if no others were equally distressed” (540). While Singer says, “…it is not beyond the capacity of the richer nations to give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering to very small proportions. The decisions and actions of human beings can prevent this kind of suffering” (495). While it is extremely kind to continuously contribute help to others in need, whether it involves volunteering or submitting payments, a person should not be required to give until their own welfare becomes in danger. Singer classifies these people as immoral because if one is able to prevent bad happenings, they should basically give up their funds unselfishly in order to create the maximum amount

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)”.

The premises of Singer’s argument is as follows; The first “official” premise- “I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” The second premise- “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything or comparable moral importance. Then we ought, morally, to do it.” Box 4 is the heart of Singer’s argument; “If it is in our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral important. Then we ought, morally, to do it.” The conclusion of the argument is “… we ought to give money away [thereby acting to prevent further suffering due to lack of food, shelter and medical care], and it is not wrong to do so.

Singer believes that we should all give to charity until we reach a point where we lose something morally equivalent to the people starving or until we are equal. To do this, because not all private individuals would, would require some sort of force. Because this would have to happen it would essentially eliminate the notion of charity. It will no longer be a generous donation of your earnings to help others, it will be a repressive act of a totalitarian regime to try and steal your property. This will lead to a chain reaction of events that I will explain further. People work hard to earn what they have and they should be able to do what they want with it. Thievery is also immoral and it would be done on a grand scale taking almost everything people have. This raises another question, is this as immoral as letting people starve? I would argue it is close because you are taking away people’s livelihoods that they worked for and are shoving them into poverty. I know that people struggling in developing nations

Accepting the three premises seems to require us to reconsider the meaning of charity and duty. The obligation to give as much as we can becomes a matter of duty not charity. This upends the notion where charitable giving to those in need is praiseworthy, but failure is not to be condemned. By the force of Singer’s argument, failure to give is wrong because we must do everything in our power to direct every extra resource to those suffering from death and starvation. This changes our conception of giving from optional to obligatory. For example, it would wrong to buy a new shirt or enjoy a fine meal instead of giving to famine relief. Singer’s conclusion is simply This

The final and third counter-argument is that Singer question exactly how much we should be giving away. In this counter-argument, Singer talks of giving until one reaches marginal utility; or in the case where suffering would have greatly increased or decreased in his self, if he gave more than one can afford to give. One should avoid bad things from happening or sacrificing too much to help those in need. Giving until you reach your marginal utility is only required. “Singer believes we are obliged to give money away until our sacrifice is of comparable moral importance to the agony of people starving to death” (Specter, 1999). This is our duty to do so. An example

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.

Peter Singer’s central idea focuses around how grim death and suffering from lack of food, shelter and medical care really is. He further argues that if we can prevent something this unfortunate from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to do it. In other words, as privileged citizens, we ought to prevent all of the death and suffering that we can from lack of food, shelter and medical care from happening by giving our money and resources to charity (Chao, 2016, in-class discussion). In the terms of this argument, death and suffering from poverty are preventable with the

Singer makes the points that suffering which leads to death is wrong and if an individual has the opportunity to help someone without giving up something of equal or greater value, they should take the opportunity. Singer uses an example of Bengal in 1971 where the government and its people ignored its individuals suffering to highlight the effects of ignoring these serious issues. Singer also uses an analogy that since clothes and a baby for example do not share the same moral cost, one

Two of the objections are the blind and kidney examples. If a doctor were to come up to a perfectly healthy person and tell them that he or she needs to give one eye to a blind person so they can see, most often, they would immediately say no. The giver would be left with only one eye to see, while the receiver would be gifted with one eye to see. It seems to be a negative outcome for the person giving the eye and a positive outcome for the one receiving it. The same goes for the kidney, if someone is asked to donate a kidney to a complete stranger, they would say no in this situation as well. They do not believe they should be expected to give a kidney to a random stranger because it only leaves them with one healthy kidney for themselves, but it also saves the receiver from possible death. In both situations, it seems as though they are sacrificing too much of his or her self, which goes against Singer’s second premise of preventing something bad from happening without sacrificing too much. Depending how we look at it, though, we are not necessarily sacrificing too much in those

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,”

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

In this paper I will begin by explaining Singer’s utilitarian argument in “The Life You Can Save” regarding the obligation of affluent nations to give in order to alleviate global poverty. Secondly, I will analyze one objection to Singer’s argument that opposes charity. Thirdly, after examining the objection to Singer’s argument, I will present Singer’s noteworthy reply. Finally, after offering both an objection to Singer’s argument, as well as Singer’s rebuttal, I will offer my own view on whether or not Singer’s refutation is convincing.