More handpicked essays just for you.
Famine affluence and morality criticism
Famine affluence and morality criticism
Famine affluence and morality criticism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Peter Singer’s, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer defends his utilitarian-derived moral theories on the basis of two assumptions: “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad,” and “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,” in order to justify his conclusion that once an individual meets his basic needs, he is morally obliged to use his resources to assist those who are in need, regardless of proximity (Singer 231). In order to further his assumptions, Singer explores the concept of what is obligatory, meaning that there is no alternative with equal or better consequences. Likewise, …show more content…
despite Singer not directly explaining utilitarian principles by name, the foundation for his premises are utilitarian in nature as they aim at achieving the highest overall utility for the total welfare. Singer defends his conclusions on the premise that if the reader agrees with his aforementioned assumptions, then he or she must fundamentally accept his conclusions based on the logic of his argument—his argument is that one’s moral principles justify his or her actions.
Therefore, in this paper, I will argue that if the reader accepts the premise of Singer’s argument, which implies moral obligation, then the reader must fundamentally accept Singer’s conclusions, regardless if the reader questions the practicality of the argument or the utilitarian-derived thought process. Singer does not defend his first assumption as the moral theory is rather sound, and most rational people would acknowledge suffering and death as bad. However, he defends his second assumption with various implications. The first implication that Singer rationalizes is that distance and proximity should not be taken into account, since it is not morally relevant, as explained by the drowning child metaphor. This rationale relates back to the concept of what is obligatory; the drowning child is of equal importance as the Bengali and the consequence of saving one over the other is not greater …show more content…
(232). The second implication, to which he makes numerous objections in order to later reject the objections and support his conclusion, is that many people can help.
However, Singer argues that the first part of objection is an “excuse of inactivity,” which is psychological (233). However, he then expands upon this implication, which helps provide an interesting clarification on the basis of Singer’s logic. As previously stated, Singers logic is that one’s moral principles are justified by his or her actions. However, to do so, would require an "if then logic." In providing a counter argument, singer explains the plausibility of everyone giving $5, assuming his or her circumstances were similar to that of his own, then the problem would be solved. However, he then counters his objection, since the entire premise is hypothetical. Therefore, applying his moral theory and what one is morally obliged to do if he or she agrees with his premise, then an individual would have to give more than $5 or whatever the equivalent is for them to prevent the most suffering possible without suffering
themselves. The third implication is the distinction between charity and duty. His solution is that giving money away is the best means to prevent starvation. Singer finds charity to be obligatory, not a choice. His argument is that if giving money were a choice, then there would not be any repercussions of not giving, which is not the case since more individuals are suffering. Therefore, if one accepts Singer’s first premise that suffering and death from lack of food is bad, then by not giving money that would in turn provide food for starving people is in fact bad and charity is obligatory. Therefore, if one evaluates each of Singer’s objections to his own premises, they are refuted, as they are the solutions to the problem, when evaluating the assumptions using moral theory. Therefore, even if the reader does not find Singer’s conclusion practical and even if he has specific problems with the solution, as long as he agrees with any of Singer’s assumptions, then he must fundamentally accept the solution if he is a morally rational individual.
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
Saint Augustine once said, “Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.” (Augustine). Augustine's belief that it is the duty of the individual to assist those less fortunate than themselves is expressed in the essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. Singer adopts the persona of a sage utilitarian philosopher who judges the morality of actions based on the consequences that are wrought by them. Singer utilizes powerful pathos, rhetorical questions, ethos, and a bold tone which contributes to his purpose of persuading his intended audience of American consumers to live only on necessity rather than luxury as well as to donate their discretionary income to the impoverished.
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
Throughout his essay, Singer argues that we must reject the common sense view of giving to charity. The common sense view of giving to charity is one that is supererogatory; it is not obligated for us
Peter Singer states two principles on the effects of famine, affluence, and morality which he feels that everyone should abide by. The first argument made is that lack of food, shelter and medicine is bad and can lead to feeling pain and death. I for one, could agree on this assumption just by analyzing it carefully. We see Singer on his thesis elaborate the causes of famine within East Bengal in 1970s. As governments and individuals within the world see the massive flooding’s and mismanagement of food issuing one hopes that we all as a society could take action to help stop such suffering and act on a situation like the impaired damage that happened with East Bengal. This then leads to Singer’s second argument; is if it is in our power to
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.
Peter Singer organizes his arguments into an outline form allowing a reader to take individual thoughts, adding them together giving a “big picture.” Within the first few pages, Singer shares two guiding assumptions in regards to his argument to which I stated above. The first assumption states “that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (231). Singer steps away from the typical writing style; he states the assumption yet he does not give a personal comment in regards to the assumption. He chooses to do so because the assumption itself is surely uncontroversial; most people would agree, but to those who don’t agree, there are so many possibilities at which to arrive to this assumption that, after all, if they don’t yet comprehend its truth, it would be hard to convince them of its accuracy. Speaking for myself, if I encountered an individual that does not agree to the assumption that death by avoidable causes is bad; I would not hesitate to declare them of being heartless. There are many cases, whether across oceans on foreign land or areas to which we live, where people are dying because of inescapable, unfortunate reasons. Within such cases, even a possible little voice in the back of the head can lead one to wonder who has the responsibility of helping those who are enduring such unnecessary deaths. This sense of wonder leads us to Singer’s second assumption; “if it is in our power to prevent something from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (231). To better clarify what this assumption is looking for, Singer points out that “It requires u...
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to
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...
Singer's argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro...
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.
But another very large portion of individuals like Peter Singer who also use the utilitarian way of thinking arrive at the conclusion that we should alleviate world hunger because it would increase the aggregate happiness in the world(866). Peter Singer uses the drowning child analogy to justify his position. He argues that if a person sees a child that’s drawing, and that person is capable of saving the child, that person is obligated to do so(866). In this situation the outcome is that the child is obviously happy that someone saved him, the person who saved the child is slightly less happy because his clothes were ruined, but nevertheless both are alive and well. Singer goes on to explain that we should apply this sort of thinking when it comes to world hunger, He says that if our situation allows us to help those in need, we are obligated to do so.(866) Singer and other individuals with the same understanding of the situation are basing their argument on the principle of utility, which essentially says that our actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 752). The principle of utility is the only thing that matters when it comes to Utilitarianism, an action is right if it ends
There is a man named Bob, who purchases a Bugatti. One day, he is at a railway and in the distance, he sees a little girl on the train tracks. He has a decision to make; should he flip the switch so the train misses the little girl and hits his truck, or should he allow the train to kill the girl, but his investment is safe because the Bugatti is safe. The premises are one, Bob purchases a nonessential item, a Bugatti. Two, the little girl will not die, as long as the train hits Bob’s Bugatti and not the little girl. Three, Bob’s behavior will be morally unacceptable if he does not flip the switch (Singer 225-226). Singer includes other analogies that follow his main premise and his conclusion always is the same, it is immoral to purchase a nonessential
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A