Who is Responsible to Solve Global Poverty and Hunger?

In Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal

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.

How many of you see poverty and hunger as a problem in the world? How many of you think that you cannot possibly help solve this problem?

Mill argues that all sources “of human suffering are in a great degree, many of them almost entirely, conquerable by human care and effort” (Mill 15). Through this statement, Mill and Singer’s perspectives realign. Singer states that “if we stopped feeding animals on grains and soybeans, the amount of food saved would-- if distributed to those who need it-- be more than enough to end hunger throughout the world” (Singer 220). Thus, the problem rests in the selfishness of affluent nations, who do not distribute their grain to poor nations. Singer furthermore argues that we could provide contraceptives to poor nations to slow their birth rates (Singer 241). By evenly distributing food and slowly the birth rate, human suffering caused by absolute poverty could cease to exist.

In Peter Singer’s 1972 article titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he suggests that wealthy nations have an ethical duty to contribute much more than they do to other nations who are suffering through a natural disaster, extreme poverty, famine or other issues. In this paper, I will describe Singers objective and give his argument with regards to this issue. I will describe three counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he addresses, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counterarguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal utility and also differentiate how it pertains to his argument. I will compare how the ideas of duty and charity alter in his suggested world. To conclude, I

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.

Philosophers, Peter Singer’s and Onora O’Neill’s attempt to draw connection between poverty and moral philosophy and how aid should be directed towards groups in absolute poverty. The aim of this paper is to provide an extensive analysis on the work of both the philosophers’ while outlining some of the limitations each of the theories has.

In this paper I will defend John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert against Peter Singer’s theory of our duty to the global poor. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the tens of thousands of children under the age of 5 who die everyday from starvation and treatable disease. It seems natural that we as citizens of a first world country have a duty to help the global poor through charity. However that “duty” is vague and is under heavy moral debate. We as privileged citizens, living in a prosperous country, do have some responsibility to help the global poor. However, this rightful duty should not necessarily live up to the extreme and overwhelming expectations of Peter Singer. John Arthur’s argument of entitlement and desert is more realistic, logical, and more applicable to the world we live in today.

In the text, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, by Peter Singer, Singer suggests an essential move in our ethical responsibilities which will prompt a central move in our lifestyle. He argues that we are in charge of aiding those around the globe who are in poverty and suffering. First, in the beginning of the text, Singer explains the Bhola Cyclone of East Bengal that left people in living in poverty and suffering from starvation. Then, in the middle of the text, Singer explains how strong and weak moral principles will prompt an adjustment in our lives, our general public, and our reality. Finally, in the end of the text, Singer states that it is our obligation to prevent as much suffering as we can without additionally making or creating

Many moral theories have been proposed to understanding our obligations and responding to the perceived injustices present in the world such as world hunger and world poverty, two of the most prominent of these theories are utilitarianism, and human rights. In her essay ‘Rights, Obligations, and World Hunger’, Onora O’Neill critically examines these theories and highlights their inadequacy towards understanding our obligations towards alleviating world poverty, then goes on to propose a third alternative theory to the aforementioned theories, which she believes is better suited. The theory she proposes is that of the Kantian ethical theory developed by 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. This theory is indeed the best suited to understanding our obligations to alleviating world poverty. Before expounding on the Kantian theory that O’Neill proposes, and why it is the optimal approach for understanding our obligations to those suffering from world poverty, I will very briefly summarise the other two moral theories, and explain why O’Neill is correct in her assessment that they are inadequate to dealing with the problem at hand.

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.

O’Neill formulates her beliefs based on the ideas of Immanuel Kant. Kantianism is founded on the belief that one must never treat themselves or another person as a mere means. O’Neill believes that the intention to perform an action, rather than the consequences of it, is what determines the moral worth of one’s actions. Additionally, she would argue that Kantianism revolves around actions reflecting one or more personal maxim, or rule of conduct with which one guides their life. In conveying the Kantian perspective, O’Neill formulates a duty based argument. When applying our duty of beneficence, she highlights that we have a responsibility to perform acts that refrain from using people as mere means, as well as to help develop and promote the other person’s ends, while fostering their capacities to pursue their goals. O’Neill further continues to mention our duty of justice, which implies that we have an obligation to give to those in need, but prioritize those that we personally know or are in close proximity to. Furthermore, this belief supports the idea

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

Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.

Feeding the hungry is a matter of justice because it is something we must do. Justice is something that can be enforced, but the demands of charity cannot be enforced. One of Narveson’s major claim in this article is that it is morally permissible to force someone to act just-ly, but it is never morally permissible to force someone to be charitable. He makes a claim that we should be charitable to some degree. Narveson’s position is that feeding the hungry is a matter of charity, not justice.