In “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Peter Singer offers a critique on the ordinary ways of thinking about famine relief as he highlights the potential implications of accepting what can most accurately be defined as utilitarianism as a guide for conduct. The moral philosophy Singer conveys in this text are most closely related and comparable to the ideas of nineteenth-century English philosopher, John Stuart Mill as Singers’ approach is more utilitarian rather than deontological. Despite their similarities, the ideas of Singer and J.S Mill contain many discrepancies, especially with regard to whether they lean towards act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism. Although Singer and Mill both adhere to a consequentialist theory as their moral …show more content…
For one, it limits our freedom to act as to do what Singer demands, that is, make the morally best choice would vastly reduce our freedom to make our own life choices as self-governing moral beings. In practice, utilitarianism, generally requires people to predict the long term consequences of an action, however, there is no guarantee that circumstances will turn out precisely as predicted. In the case of assistance to those in poverty, it is rather obvious that it is to a strong degree, universally good to help. Nonetheless, utilitarianism is not merely a theory for the moral solution to famine, so in other circumstances and even in the case of a poverty situation, it fails to consider different views on what happiness is. Not only that, but the theory is rather simplistic as it cannot solve every dilemma since without a doubt, every problem is unique. For instance, if the theory which Singer promotes is the way in which we must judge morality, then it would appear that if one has $200, one should give it to Oxfam rather than spend it on dining out for a month: “what is one month's dining out, compared to a child's life?” (P. Singer 226). While one’s happiness would be increased if one dined out, it would be outweighed by the happiness one could cause to the people they donate the money to. Singer almost exclusively compares dining out for one’s own happiness with the happiness of the people one donates to therefore, he ignores other variables in one’s dining experience such as the restaurant staff, which one essentially contributes to when they dine out. In other words, Singer pays minimal heed to the economic effects which can potentially occur if all were to act in accordance to his moral philosophy as in if everyone were to abstain from eating out, restaurants would eventually lay off staff leading to unemployment, or simply put,
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
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
He views it as something that is more of an obligation or moral duty rather than an option. According to Singer’s view of charity, if more people were to adopt a radical view of charity, we will be able to prevent what is bad, rather than simply promoting what is good. People must give to charity whenever they can because suffering from a lack of food/hunger or extreme poverty is generally bad. Most people that aren’t suffering from extreme hunger or poverty generally have the means to give to charity, therefore, according to Singer, if we have the means to give to charity and we aren’t giving up anything of great moral worth then we must try to stop the suffering. In his essay, Singer states that "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." However, if individuals of first world countries were to continuously donate rather than spending that money on luxuries, the majority of their income would be spent on alleviating a global issue and their savings would ultimately diminish down to the level of global poverty until they would be unable to give any
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
The objection says that Singer’s analyses of moral duty conflicts with society’s current outlook on charity, which views it as not an obligation but a personal choice, where those who choose to give are praised for their philanthropy but those who choose not to give are not condemned (236). Singer retorts this objection by saying that we as a society need to essentially change our perspective of charity (236). What Singer means by this is that we need to drastically revise our ideas of what a moral duty is because, in agreement with Singer’s premise that we are morally obligated to help those who are suffering if it is within our power to do so without causing something equally as bad as the suffering to happen (231), charity should be considered as our moral responsibility and a mandatory duty for society
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.
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 utilitarian theory points out his main arguments for his statement “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” (375). He supports this by suggesting that were are morally obligated to prevent bad no matter the “proximity or distance” , “the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation we are” and that we ought to prevent hunger by sacrificing only their luxuries, which are of lesser moral importance (378). This meaning that we shouldn’t limit our aide to only those that we can see or that we know because morally there is no different between our obligation to them and our obligation to those overseas. Also, we should limit our aide to what we think ...
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.
In utilitarianism the common goal is to create the most happiness for the most amount of people. Mills definition of the Greatest Happiness Principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (540) If this principle is the case then as a utilitarian your actions of good should promote the most happiness. This way of thinking can really produce some wrong answers and actions to moral questions. For example, say you and your family are starving and in need of food. The only possible way to get food would be to steal it. In general society finds it morally wrong to steal under any circumstances. But as utilitarian you have to ask, would my actions of stealing food promote the most happiness for the most people. You need to take into account the people you are making happy and the people you are hurting. On one hand, you would be promoting happiness for you and your and entire family, and on the other hand, you would be hurting the storeowner by stealing some of his revenue. Utilitarian ideas tell you that you should steal the food because your actions are promoting happiness and the absence of pain for the least amount of people. There are other examples I found when doing some research like doctors going against morals to save more sick people by letting one healthy person die
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
In Narveson’s “Feeding the Hungry”, Narveson argues against Singer’s utilitarianism’s perspective on how people should give any surplus money received to those less fortunate. Narveson discusses when it is an obligation to give, and when it is virtuous to give to those starving. First, Narveson’s only condition for helping hungry people is if you are the reason for them being hungry in the first place. For instance, if a mother takes away her son’s dinner as punishment, it would be the mother’s duty to feed him because she was the cause of his hunger.
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.