Hunger Crisis: A Call for Global Intervention

1259 Words3 Pages

Do you know what it is like to suffer from hunger? Do you know how it feels to know that the meal you are eating today might be your last meal for about a week? Hunger is defined in the dictionary as "the painful sensation or state of weakness caused by the need of food" Hunger is not easy and it is certainly not right to watch another starve when you know you can help. Peter singer dig deep to how the world can help people suffering and dying because of hunger, shelter, and medical need. Watching hunger develop is absurd especially when others have so much that they are throwing it away and not being considerate to the ones that are suffering. Many others from outside countries can do something about it with just little from everybody. Singer …show more content…

The decision to end world hunger is a groups effort that can provide little by little from everyone to make a difference that will be effective. “the decision and actions of human beings can prevent this suffering” (Singer 554). The action of the human race itself that re better off can save the life of many suffering that are worse off. Singer takes on the case that it should be a moral duty to help others because people often help those that are in reach to them and ignoring to sacrifice and put the effort to help those that are far of reach from them as well. Singer wants us to follow the famine relief and support those in need even if it means putting aside ours wants and benefiting to those who are suffering needs. “We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes which we do not need to keep us warm. To do so is not charitable or generous” (singer 557). Giving to a suffering nation should be as enjoyable or even more so than buying a new dress and just because you give it is not a generosity or charitable either because you are supporting life, which should not be an option. If it is in our will to prevent harm, …show more content…

Arthurs view is discussing rights that can be taken away from the givers life permanently or put the givers life at harm on purpose, while singer is discussing giving to people who are suffering from hunger, medial needs, and shelter. Arthurs simple type of entitlement is realistic to how people think instantly because people have rights and deserve something because of their capabilities and abilities but it contradicts with the moral principle of evil, yes we have rights to things and work hard for things, but, what about the people who doesn’t have that chance because their economy does not provide jobs? It is not about avoiding your rights but be thoughtful of others circumstances. Singers point is not asking to give all to the point where one is become poor but he asking to put aside the selfishness and give what we do not necessarily need. Thomas Pogge also bring up the same case of giving not because it is a requirement but because one wants to. “the inequality is avoidable: The better-off can improve the circumstances of the worse-off without becoming badly off themselves” (Pogge). Thomas is asking to give if one can, which is what most people would agree to but Most likely a lot of people say that they will give until it comes to the giving. Pogge point of view may also suggest that People should not help either because he

Open Document