Why Does Singer Give An Example Of Sacrifice

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.

Peter Singer defends that we “ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance (Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code pg. 813)”. He believes that we should donate at least half of our earnings to people in absolute poverty, which in this case means poverty by any standard. He also says we should help out people in other countries before we help out our own neighbor. “The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have

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.

     With Singer’s second assumption, it could seem at first that it attempts to make the reader feel guilty. But if we choose to look closer, we can see its “flaws.” Singer gives us two suggestions that make his assumption even more complex to deal with; he gives us the flaws. His first argument says, “The principle takes no account of proximity or distance” (231). He is trying to imply that an excuse claiming that the sufferers are too far away to be able to help is an unacceptable excuse. Our world has become so much more technologically advanced in so many different ways, it has made possible to communication with the other side of the planet. Singer refers to it as a “global village,” it then reminds me how connected we can be to other areas of the world, therefore making me question why people can’t use that “global village” to help others out. Why do so many people leave new technology unrecognized, ignoring the chance to save someone? I often find myself getting caught up

For example, one of the arguments he poses, for disregarding distance as a barrier to moral action, is that “expert observers and supervisors, sent out by famine relief organizations or permanently stationed in famine-prone areas,” can effectively direct our aid. Because of their proximity, these experts have intimate knowledge of the situation and are more adept at determining where funds need to be allocated than us, thousands of miles away. Additionally, Singer states that, “it is possible that we are in a better position to judge what needs to be done to help a person near to us than one far away,” which once again supports the idea that proximity matters since it provides the opportunity to better judge and react to a given situation. Unfortunately, there are times where obtaining all the fact is impossible. Perhaps we lack the skills to obtain the information, or there is simply not enough time. In these situations, we have no choice but to use our past experiences and better judgement to decide whether moral action should be taken. Furthermore, it is imperative that, in the situations where all the variables are not known, we are prepared to accept the consequences our actions may

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.

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

In his article Rich and Poor, Peter Singer argues that we have a moral obligation to give assistance to people in absolute poverty. He derived this conclusion from three premises. The first states that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to it. The second premise is that absolute poverty is a bad thing. The third premise is that we are able to alleviate some portion of absolute poverty without giving up anything of comparable moral significance. To illustrate the urgency of our duty to assist the poor, he believes that in a case where we happen to walk pass a child drowning in a shallow pond, the vast majority of people would agree that it would be seriously morally wrong to not rescue the child. Connecting this scenario to Singer’s argument, we can say it is seriously morally wrong to not assist the poor because the lives of these people in need are of greater moral importance than the excess income we would otherwise spend on luxury goods. Thus, Singer is correct in saying that we have a moral obligation to assist the poor, and that failing to do so is equally as morally wrong as failing to rescue the drowning child.

Singer in his book “The Life You Can Save” wrote that : “…when we spend our surplus on concerts or fashionable shoes, on fine dining and good wines, or on holidays in faraway lands, we are doing something wrong” (Singer, “The Life You Can Save” 18). He means that if we are spending our surplus on ourselves, on our pleasure and happiness, for us these luxuries are worth more than a child's life. Singer tries to persuade people that they should give up extra money that they have in order to help other people. He demands people to put interests of others before their own. His argument is too extreme, because it is an unrealistic that people will sacrifice their all luxuries, to which they are accustomed, to help to a

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, 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

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.

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.