Morality According To Peter Singer

In our society, people are not morally expected to give large amounts of time and money to charity, however doing so is commended. Peter Singer argues that every person has a moral duty to give as much of their resources to help people suffering until they themselves reach a level close to poverty (Singer). He claims that in no way should this be deemed a charitable act, as it is inherently every human’s duty, thus holding the same weight as the responsibility not to actively murder innocent people. John Arthur challenges this demand, discussing the notions of universalizability and “an ideal moral code” (Arthur 706) as counterarguments. He claims that every human holds the right to “non-interference” (Arthur) of other people in

People place higher value on people and things that are actually tangible. The internet uses only two of a person’s senses – sight and sound – whereas, actually being in the presence of something uses all five – sight, sound, touch, taste and smell. It is thereby inherent in our nature that we are more connected with things in our immediate surroundings, rather than witnessed through a screen or newspaper from many miles away. For example, it is safe to assume that someone would care more if their mother was diagnosed with cancer than if the news informed them of the murder of ten innocent people. Singer’s example that, yes, most people would sacrifice ruining their suit in order to save a drowning child (Singer 696) does not hold as much weight as he hopes because of the fact that these famine victims are so far away and thus people don’t

Arthur says that “no one has a unique status” (Arthur 708) when it comes to pain, that it is all equal, however the difference is that you can feel your own pain and even that of those close to you. Therefore, it is obvious that we would sacrifice saving more famine victims in faraway countries to allow for our family to live more comfortable lives, distant from the poverty line. However, it is still in our nature to be generous and giving, therefore it is looked amicably upon when people are charitable. Furthermore, it is generally not taught to children from a young age that it is imperative to give large amounts to sufferers in faraway countries. Instead, children learn to stay away from strangers, that they are threatening and untrustworthy, therefore we are cautious beings. To provide an excessive amount of personal resources to faraway countries in order to relieve drastic suffering takes a consequentialist view. It would drive people to living their lives always looking ahead, at how to maximise gains and most effectively give away these gains. Their lives would subsequently become worthless, living only to better others’ lives, being likened to slavery. This would surely lead to a variety of problems, suicide, for one. For if everyone’s purpose on earth is to help the suffering, and those