In response to the recent failure of the international community to prevent the famine crisis in the Horn of Africa since July 2011, Suzanne Dvorak the chief executive of Save the Children wrote that, “We need to provide help now. But we cannot forget that these children are wasting away in a disaster that we could - and should - have prevented” she added, “The UN estimates that every $1 spent in prevention saves $7 in emergency spending.” (Dvorak, 2011). Many people who read such statement wonder about our obligation towards famine relief, and ask, whether we are morally obliged to spend one dollar in order to prevent such a crisis or not. Forty years ago, Peter Singer answered this question in his article 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 this paper, I will argue against two articles which were written against Singer’s view, and against helping the poor countries in general. I will argue against John Arthur’s article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (1974 ) ,and Garrett Hardin’s article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor ( 1976); I will show that both articles are exaggerating the negative consequences of aiding the poor, as well as building them on false assumptions. Both Arthur and Hardin are promoting the self-interest without considering the rights of others, and without considering that giving for famine relief means giving life to many children. A Case against John Arthur In the article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Cod... ... middle of paper ... ... Friedman, U. (2011, July 19). What It took for the U.N to declare famine in Somalia. Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/what-it-took-un-declare-famine-somalia/40152/ Hardin, G. (1974, September ). Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor. Retrieved fromhttp://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html Montgomery, K. (n.d.). The Demographic Transition. Retrieved on August 4, 2011 from http://www.marathon.uwc.edu/geography/demotrans/demtran.htm. White, J. (2009). Contemporary Moral Problems [pp360]. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=dcK6-h1ngtcC&pg=PA357&dq=Consumption+,+global+warming+and+famine&hl=en&ei=diw7TsOyGoSisQLK_N35Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Consumption%20%2C%20global%20warming%20and%20famine&f=false.
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
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
According to Peter Singer, we as a society must adopt a more radical approach with regards to donating to charity and rejecting the common sense view. In the essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer argues that we have a strong moral obligation to give to charity, and to give more than we normally do. Critics against Singer have argued that being charitable is dependent on multiple factors and adopting a more revisionary approach to charity is more difficult than Singer suggests; we are not morally obliged to donate to charity to that extent.
In the paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer defends the idea that is our moral duty to help others in need. Since there are other people in the world that are suffering and we our in a position to give, we are obligated to help create change in the world . In this paper I will explain Peter Singer’s view about how it is our moral duty to help those who are suffering in the world. Then I will present an implication of Peter Singer claim that implies how we are obligated to give upon to others that are suffering. I will then explain an argurment to provide a reason of why someone should support Peter Singer principle. Carried to a logical conclusion, Peter Singer aruement that his principle is clearly obligatory than superagory. I will consider the two actions that Peter Singer gives to distinguish duty versues chariy and argue that his principle should e consider a superagoty action. Since his
Often times, the middle and upper classes underestimate the amount of poverty left in our society. In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer reaches out to the lucrative to help the misfortune. Although Singer believes that, the wealthy has a responsibility in providing help to the less fortunate, Singer conducts theories in which he explains how we as Americans spend more on luxuries rather than necessities. If the wealthy are fortunate enough to go out to fancy meals, they should be able to provide food for a poor family or medicine for the children. The negative attributes outweigh the positive due to the lack of supporting detail from the positive in which helps us better understand that helping people is the right thing to do rather than sitting back and doing nothing but demands that Americans donate every cent of their extra money to help the poor. According to Singer, if we provide a foundation for the misfortune we will not only make the world a better place but we will feel a relief inside that world poverty will soon end. The argument singer gives has no supporting details in which he tries and persuade the wealthy to donate money to the poor without clear thoughts.
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.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact on modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at the end with the targeted audience's popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core. Singer starts with the 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.
In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere
The world is divided into two sections: the rich and the poor, “two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third are comparatively rich…” (290) Garrett Hardin uses the “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor” to illustrate whether the poor should be saved by the
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. 8th ed. Eds. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 7-15. Print.
Singer’s principle ‘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,’ outlines such high obligations for people of wealthy countries that are too demanding. I do not agree with Peter Singer’s principle. This principle limits my freedom of choice, my freedom to act. It fails to recognize the morals and ethics I value as a person. It requires me to favor those who are physically distant rather than my neighbor; furthermore, the drowning child example does not support his thesis because physical distance affects the amount of obligation I feel to help others. And lastly it rejects other moral concerns we have, that may be of equal importance.
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer claims that the moral valuations of a reasoning body can be quantified economically, that people mustn’t help those in need who are near to us before helping those across the globe if their suffering is greater, that one must believe that every person on earth is equally morally obligated to relieve suffering but must act as though no other people are attempting to do so—in short, that nothing may lessen “our obligation to mitigate or prevent” any evil, pestilence, or discomfort across the globe until we are all living in equal squalor. If this principle isn’t sufficiently abhorrent, Singer concludes his argument by stating that were we to accept this ‘m...
Hardin, G. (1974, September). Lifeboat ethics: the case against helping the poor. Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.garretthardinsociety.org /articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html
Over the years, human beings have not made the right conclusions when it comes to benevolence. In considering when a decision should be made regarding a fellow human being in need, trivial conditions are used as excuses such as distance, magnitude, and how well you know someone. Considerably wealthy countries have given money but it amounts to a fraction of the costs of their own development of transportation and entertainment. The morality of the situation is skewed in order to coddle the conscience of the inactive. As much as people and governments would like to, they cannot deny what is happening in the world around them. The position taken by Singer is that the way people in wealthier countries respond to situations in which others around them need help due to some man made or natural disaster is unjustifiable. Singer argues that many thinks need to be redesigned—namely, what shapes and affects our definition of morality and our way of life that we tend to take for granted.
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.