More handpicked essays just for you.
Famine, affluence, and morality essay
Famine, affluence, and morality essay
Famine, affluence, and morality essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Do citizens of affluent countries have an obligation to help those who are in poorer countries? According to Peter Singer in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, if you do not give all of your resources to aid relief except those to support your basic needs than you are doing something seriously wrong. I will begin by laying out Peter Singer’s argument. His argument holds that we do have an obligation to help those who are in poorer countries by giving aid donations. I then claim that the current state of society conflicts with his argument and how this objection may not necessarily hold. Afterwards I will consider a more practical objection that claims aid donations are not enough to help people in poorer countries. Lastly, I will consider a possible …show more content…
Citizens may not give to homeless people but that does not change the fact that they should not be giving all of the necessary resources. This moral objection shows that society is the one at fault and maybe it’s the values of society itself that needs to change in order to comply with Singer’s argument. The argument and conclusion still hold to be true despite claims that society conflicts with it. This just shows that citizens should be doing even more so that they can get to the point of giving all the resources that Singer says is …show more content…
Peter Singer believes that aid donations will help the global poor, but he also believes anything that can be done to help should be. So, he would not deny the fact that money is not enough. He would still insist that what you can do to help should be done. For example, if you believe going on mission trips to build houses and better schools in poor countries is more effective, than he would agree that you should do it. Singer is not against any other options and he even gives a few long term ones of his own such as population control. As long as you are giving all that you can except those things needed to sustain your basic needs, than you are not doing anything seriously
Singer’s belief that everyone should give away all excess wealth to eliminate as much suffering as possible conflicts with the idea of competition and, therefore, reduces the productivity of human civilization. Peter Singer, a professor of moral philosophy, stated in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that it is everyone’s duty to participate in philanthropy since it is morally wrong to not help someone who is suffering. Singer thoroughly explained the details of the “duty” of philanthropy: “we ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility - that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” If this philosophy is followed, and the poor beneficiary experienced the same level of comfort as the wealthy benefactor, then what incentive would the beneficiary have for
The imperfection of Singer’s solution to end world poverty exceeds its convenience in the average American. While the wealthy is targeted and responsible for the lack of donations to the less fortunate, singer gives poor supporting details in why the wealthy should donate a large portion of their wealth to only help a few individuals for a certain period of time.
The second case where Singer talks about whether or not we are morally obligated to donate money or not is the case of Bengal famine where thousands of people do not have shelter, clothing and food. Singer argues that all of us think that we are not the only one who can help in this case or who are morally obligated but the entire world is and we would not donate money until someone else does. Also, he argues that people think if one person is donating $5 then we are also obligated to donate $5 only and not more than that otherwise it will exceed the total amount that is needed.
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.
response to the Singer. Cullity argues that Singer’s conclusion, that we ought to help others in need so long as this does not cause any significant damage to ourselves, is severely demanding, as it is essentially arguing that we are morally obligated to help everybody in the world. The only way in which we would be able to justify not helping somebody who needed our help would be if doing so would put the person helping at significant risk. Cullity argues in his paper that Singer’s argument is asking too much of people when it claims that donating to aid agencies is a moral obligation and that not doing so would be immoral. His main way of doing so is by rejecting the Severe Demand.
Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. Singer continues by stating “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”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so. Singer admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...
Bentham, an act utilitarian, created a measurement called hedonic calculus that calculates if an action is wrong or right by determining factors like intensity and duration of pleasure. Singer strains on the importance of the act by the number of people affected from it. He believes that every human being is equal. Therefore, geographical and emotional closeness is irrelevant to moral responsibilities. He states that “death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” and that if you disagree “read no further” because it would be hard to convince anyone otherwise (P. 231 Singer). He argues that if we can prevent bad things from occurring without “sacrificing anything of moral importance” it’s our moral obligation to act on it (P.231 Singer). What is not clear is as to how much we should give, as we should keep in mind that not everyone in the world gives aid to famine relief so we must take that into account. Singer then tries to make it easier on us by stating that instead of negotiating something of comparable ethical significance in his second premise, it can be of any moral significance. He also believes that if one is to ignore a duty to aid others then he or she is no different than an individual who acts wrong. This is because he believes that it is our moral responsibility to do good deeds and people dying is wrong
Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.
Upon the arisal of an adversity, most individuals initially go through the means of seeking an answer in order to provide an end to whichever difficulty is at play. Throughout the centuries, the course of such an action has been demonstrated by thousands of philosophers. One of which includes Peter Singer and his solution to end world poverty. However, there was one Greek philosopher, Socrates, who took a different route when it came to finding solutions. This was displayed when Socrates asked whether or not there was a general definition for the world ‘chair’. A vast array of Greek citizens who tried to answer this question were left in a state of perplexity. To ease the minds of those he had bewildered, Socrates announced that there was not
People are starving all over the world. They lack food, water, and basic medication. Some suggest that the wealthy should donate and do their part to help. Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, wrote an article called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” in The New York Times Magazine, in which he suggests that the prosperous people should donate all money not needed for the basic requirements of life.
In addition, the author is sometimes being too forceful by telling the reader what to do. Since he uses such an emotional and forceful tone in the article, it is doubtful if Singer is successful at selling the audience on his point concerning this issue. He may have convinced many people to donate a particular amount of money for charity to poor countries, but his article is not effective enough to convince me. All human beings have the right to have luxury items even though many would argue that they are doing so at the expense of their morality.
In this piece he makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. dings”. Narveson, unlike Singer, thinks that our voluntary choices about giving are morally permissible, whether we choose to give or not. If you choose to sacrifice your luxuries for charity, then that’s fine (morally speaking), as long as you haven’t neglected your obligations with your family. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans don’t donate money to the needy when they can afford countless of luxury that are not essential to the preservation of their lives and health. In the case that you choose not to sacrifice for charity, then that’s fine too. As per Narveson 's position it’s up to us to help or feeding the hungry and whatever we decide is correct too. What Narveson does argue is that it would be wrong for others to force us to give, say, by taxing us and giving our money to charity. This claim does not contradict anything that Singer says in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Nowhere in that article does Singer say that people should be forced to give. But for a utilitarian, such as Singer, there is no reason in principle why it would be wrong to force people to give. If the policy of forcing people to give maximizes utility, then it is ipso facto the right policy. On the other hand Narveson makes a distinction between
Singer’s obligation to assist argument is based on three premises. The first premise is one that Singers believes could be almost universally accepted. It is that if we can prevent something harmful or bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then it is our obligation to do so (Singer, 2010, p.135). Singer believes that a variety of people’s ethical views can accept this premise because the condition “without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance” is fulfilled so long as the act in question does not result in anything else comparably bad happening, doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good comparable in significance to the bad event prevented (Singer,
He begins his argument with the fact that it is easier to avoid killing someone than to fail to save someone life. To begin his discussion of whether we have an obligation to assist, Singer formally outlines his argument into three premises. The first premise states, “if we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it” (200). The second premise briefly states that absolute poverty is bad, and the third premise states there is some preventable absolute poverty without sacrificing anything of significance. Therefore, Singer concludes we ought to prevent some absolute poverty. To illustrate his principle, Singer presents a hypothetical example of if you were walking somewhere and saw a small child drowning in a shallow pond. You should be obligated to help save the child’s life, even if it means you will get your jeans dirty. In Singer’s terms, your jeans are not morally significant compared to the child losing their life; therefore, concluding you should save the
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.