Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

656 Words2 Pages

In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer argues if an unfortunate situation is in one’s power to correct or prevent, without endangering anything else morally significant, then it is within the individual’s morals to act upon it. His argument concerns the poor living conditions of lack of food, water, and shelter. Singer concludes that in order to prevent the suffering of individuals living with inadequate conditions, one must give maximally without ending up hurting themselves or those in the vicinity. Additionally, many objections received were answered to emphasize the truth behind his argument. I agree with Singer that whoever has the most affluence should have a moral obligation to be fulfilled by giving aid to others. Singer believes that affluent nations, like the United States, have moral obligations to give more …show more content…

He begins with his assumption that suffering and death from an absence of needs are unfortunate. These needs include basic necessities, such as food, shelter, and medical care. Therefore, he supports this assumption by giving his general principle of preventing these unfortunate situations to occur. He states if hindering bad effects is in one’s ability, then morally, they should go through with the actions. Through implicit implications, his premise is that by giving more money to famine relief than one usually does, an individual would not be sacrificing anything morally significant, enabling them to go through with this action. Singer address objections as well in his argument. In Singer’s Drowning Child example, he “ought to wade in and pull the child out… the death of a child would… be a very bad thing” (Singer 519). The principle of acting with moral obligations

Open Document