An Analysis Of Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

Peter Singer wrote an essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” In this essay, he discusses whether or not we are personally responsible for the suffering (starvation) of others. Singer believes that if you have the means to do so, you are morally obligated to help others in need. He says that if suffering can be prevented without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then it should be done.

The question that we must look at is: Is Singer right? Is it our personal responsibility to help others? The logical answer to this question is: no, we are not. How can someone be held individually responsible for someone who is starving all the way across the Atlantic Ocean? We did not take away their food or make it impossible for them to gain access to it. We did not give birth to them and we sure did not force them to stay in their country. The problem is, the starvation of these people is “not inevitable.” There is a way to change it. So while I believe Singer is wrong in the idea that we are responsible and morally obligated to provide relief, it does not mean we should not. He is right when he says “it is not

beyond the capacity of the richer nations to give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering. The decisions and actions of human beings can prevent this kind of suffering.” The failure here occurs, according to him, because “human beings have not made the necessary decisions” to assist them. Individuals, for the most part, have not done anything significant to help, and neither has the government.
How is it fair for Britain to spend over 275,000,000 pounds on a stupid plane, but only 14,750,000 pounds in relief? Why is a plane worth more than thirty times the amount of the lives of 9 million refugees? These are some serious questions that come into play. The same question applies to Australia and its $65,000,000 opera house. Is it possible to make the opera house smaller, or perhaps use cheaper material in order to use the leftover money for relief? Yes. What about not changing anything about the cost of the opera house, but simply donating some of the proceeds to those in need? There are simple solutions to “curing” their hunger, but why is it that nobody takes the necessary steps?
I think it is due to a lack of exposure. If we are in big, bold, capitalistic America, how could we possibly understand the suffering of those in third world countries? The people here who do understand it, those that are homeless or below the poverty line, are unable to assist and do not communicate the problem. Once you have experienced suffering, and truly understood what it means to be hungry, then you are more likely to give to those in need once you have the capability to do so.
The best America has done to show the suffering of these people is to create advertisements that have the intent to motivate you to donate. However, we look at the little black children in Africa with their large, sad eyes and their skinny bodies with a belly that purges out due to malnutrition, and we find the advertisement annoying. We think that the purpose of it is so that companies can gain profit while the kids eat meals for seven cents.
Now think about the commercials for sick and/or abused animals at shelters. They play that sad Sarah McLachlan song paired with the desperate look of the animals and people instantly feel the need to do something about it. Why is this? Most likely because America cherishes its animals and it makes us think of what it would be like if our own pets were suffering. Not to say that an animal’s life is any less valuable than a human’s, but why can’t we apply that same emotion to human beings? I for one, stare at the TV and whenever these kinds of commercials turn on, I look away or start feeling very nauseous because it hurts me to look at it. It hurts me to think that this is happening and that both I and America do nothing about it. We just say, “Oh, that is sad” and turn our heads.
Another example of this is how Americans are all very willing to help all kinds of cancer patients - particularly sick children. Why is this? It is because cancer happens all over America and most likely it has happened to someone you know. You have witnessed the pain and suffering it causes, so you are likely to assist. Also, each country is wrapped up with their own people. If this were American citizens who moved overseas and were now suffering, we would all be quick to help.
The other problem we Americans have is that we are just too busy! We are in a fast paced world where things are always changing and our direction is constantly being refocused. How can we remember to help those that are starving when we are busy working, going to school, doing homework, shopping, running errands, driving our cars, getting coffee, eating, showering and sleeping? This sounds extremely shallow, but it is true. I can not remember the last time I stopped to think about helping others in need that I can not see. Personally, I am quick to help those that are visible to me. Every time I see a homeless person or someone asking for money on the street, I always give them at least something and will stop my car and traffic to do so. One time I did not have any cash on me, so I gave this guy one of my sandwiches because he was hungry. These are small gestures, but they mean a lot to the people receiving them. However, as a broke college student, I certainly do not have the means to give loads of money away for relief funds.
So, how do you get people to help?

This is a difficult question, but Singer offers some pretty simple solutions in his essay. He says, “people have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased government assistance; they have not demonstrated in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing the refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs.” These are all excellent examples of ways to provide assistance without having to give out money. In my case, these are definitely some things I could do because I do not have money to give away. The problem is, I do not care enough to give that much time of my day away. I will put help where I can and when I can, but I personally cannot do much for the masses. I am sure that a large population of people in America feel this

way.
I believe the blame should be placed on our government and the governments of the other “richer” nations. What is the point of providing monetary relief that will only keep the starving population growing and create an even worse situation. Giving money allows them to eat, but once the money is gone, they are left hungry with no way for the people to provide themselves with food. I think the best solution is to create opportunity, not relief. The dry land of these places needs to be tended, so they can properly grow their own food, and continue to do so. Not only can they feed their family, but many other families too. They could give the food out for free or even just trade it for objects of interest or services. Perhaps someone could work on their land and help them tend the fields in exchange for some of the crops. This is a small step that can easily be done with the money going towards relief. A larger step would then be to create businesses for progress and education for opportunity.
The type of businesses that need to be built are the standard ones we have in the U.S. This includes grocery stores, bakeries, clothing stores, fabric stores, and hardware stores like Home Depot. The way to get the U.S. and other places around the world on board with this is to encourage them to expand their stores globally. For instance, if you tell places like Walmart or McDonald's they have the chance to grow and make more money, they are sure to take the opportunity. McDonald's has already made itself global, but Walmart still remains stagnant in the U.S. I think they would be reluctant to do so as a starving child in India does not have the money to pay for a McChicken, but at least opening businesses would allow for employment opportunity. When people are employed, they earn the money to spend. This method would benefit both U.S. businesses and the poor countries in the world.
It is equally important to create schools because the more schools they have, the more people there is that can get educated. The schools currently around the world in these poor places lack the necessary tools to educate and improve. So along with building new ones, they would need to make sure the staff is competent and eligible to do their jobs and provide money to offer them the things they need for their lesson plans. Once they are educated, they can create the opportunity to leave the place they are in and find a new home somewhere more prosperous or assist their country in becoming a better place. For instance, if one is educated enough and becomes a proper politician, they can have a say in worldly matters and bring attention to the despair occurring in the country. We are able to provide media coverage that shows these things to the world, but it is clear that this does almost nothing in helping these people.