Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality

1521 Words4 Pages

What, if any, is our moral duty to help those less fortunate? In Famine, Affluence and Morality (1972), Peter Singer’s so-called ‘weaker’ argument for helping those in need raises many objections. This essay will demonstrate that whilst we may agree with these objections, they do not provide sufficient moral justification to reject his philosophy. **Outline arguments a little

Singer argues and concludes in his weaker argument that those more fortunate have a duty to donate significant amounts of money to foreign aid agencies. If Singer’s conclusion is to be rejected, it seems one must provide a satisfactory argument for denying the second premise, for the following reasons. Firstly, premise one is beyond challenge, as from an intuitive level, denial would be morally callous at best. The third premise would only be refutable insofar as the efficacy of aid itself is refutable, however the scope of this essay will not examine this considering the relative security one has in trusting aid’s efficacy on an increasing basis. The second premise of the argument is by far the most ambitious and controversial, and therefore in need of enquiry. *Refine and exclude third premise as beyond scope

Singer offers the drowning child analogy as a defence for premise two and as a critique of our current common sense morality. Supposing we were to come across a drowning child in a shallow pond, common sense morality would urge us to save this child. It would be inconvenient in the sense that our shoes would get muddy, however it is clear to us that this is insignificant in comparison with the death of the child. Condemnation would fall upon any who failed to save this child who's need for saviour is evident to you. This situation, Singer argues, i...

... middle of paper ...

...ally ‘buy’ virtue without possessing the compassion or empathy that our current moral code associates with a ‘good’ person. Yet on consideration, Singer doesn’t explicitly say giving is the only moral course; “I would sympathise with someone who thought that campaigning was more important” (FAM). Although Singer’s argument for famine relief is in need of refining at the compassionate, humanitarian level, it does indeed advocate moral courses alternative to strictly impartiality.

Singer’s weaker argument fails to account for the significant first person aspect of morality- that of intuition and compassion. Despite this, it is difficult to find anything fundamentally wrong with his overall ethical model. He appeals to us not as philosophers or utilitarians, but as moral beings. As a moral being myself, I find myself inherently drawn to Singers famine relief argument.

Open Document