Most westerners today cannot begin to understand what it means to live in total poverty. Although it may seem unimaginable, extreme poverty still exists today in less affluent societies. The utilitarian philosophy is all about making sure that the good outweighs the bad in such a way that pain is brought to a minimum. The objective of this belief is to maximize pleasure for the most amount of people by diminishing any form of pain possible. This approach can be applied to the current situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the issue of poverty is still greatly present in their population. While promoting happiness for the masses, the utilitarian belief also considers that if a person has more than enough to survive in life, it …show more content…
To prove the truth of his statement he brings forth the following example; “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.” (Peter Singer) The fundamental rule of utilitarianism is that anybody with a surplus of wealth must donate that surplus to the poor. Giving that extra money will not affect that persons’ life in a drastic way, the pain of dying of starvation outweighs the pain of living without luxury by far and therefore giving is not considered an option but an obligation. The most important part of giving a donation is making sure the money actually goes to those in need. Finding a reliable organization is not easy an easy task, UNICEF and Oxfam are some of the few poverty relief associations that have proven to use the donations received to actually help poor …show more content…
When people become aware of bad situations around the world, if their first instinct will not be to act and find a way to alleviate others suffering, they will at the very least think about it. Often, thoughts lead to actions. For example, if people were made aware of the terrible level of starvation the little kids in Congo are faced with daily, the next time they dine out, they will know that something better could have been done with that money. Then, if the life of a child is valued more than going to fancy restaurants, they would give that money instead to a worthy charity. This probably would make living a morally decent life- according to utilitarianism quite difficult. It may be grueling but if a person isn’t giving, then they should, at least, be aware that they are failing to live a morally decent
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
In his essay, Singer states that "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." However, if individuals in first world countries were to continuously donate rather than spending that money on luxuries, the majority of their income would be spent on alleviating a global issue and their savings would ultimately diminish down to the level of global poverty until they would be unable to give any more.
In other words, Singer believes that unless you can find something wrong with the following argument, you will have to drastically change your lifestyle and how you spend your money. Although some people might believe that his conclusion is too radical, Singer insists that it is the logical result of his argument. In sum, his view is that all affluent people should give much more to famine relief. While I agree with Singer’s argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped.
Singer continues by stating “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”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so.
Bentham, an act utilitarian, created a measurement called hedonic calculus that calculates if an action is wrong or right by determining factors like intensity and duration of pleasure. Singer strains on the importance of the act by the number of people affected from it. He believes that every human being is equal. Therefore, geographical and emotional closeness is irrelevant to moral responsibilities. He states that “death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” and that if you disagree “read no further” because it would be hard to convince anyone otherwise (P. 231 Singer). He argues that if we can prevent bad things from occurring without “sacrificing anything of moral importance” it’s our moral obligation to act on it (P.231 Singer). What is not clear is as to how much we should give, as we should keep in mind that not everyone in the world gives aid to famine relief so we must take that into account. Singer then tries to make it easier on us by stating that instead of negotiating something of comparable ethical significance in his second premise, it can be of any moral significance. He also believes that if one is to ignore a duty to aid others then he or she is no different than an individual who acts wrong. This is because he believes that it is our moral responsibility to do good deeds and people dying is wrong
In an age where humanity realizes the differences between right and wrong, and ponders why they choose whichever side they do, utilitarianism provides and answer.
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.
Peter Singer, in his influential essay “Famine, Affluence and Poverty”, argues that affluent people have the moral obligation to contribute to charity in order to save the poor from suffering; any spending on luxuries would be unjustified as long as it can be used to improve other’s lives. In developing his argument, Singer involved one crucial premise known as the Principle of Sacrifice—“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”. To show that such principle has the property to be held universal, Singer refers to a scenario in which a person witnesses a drowning child. Most people, by common sense, hold that the witness has the moral duty to rescue the child despite some potential costs. Since letting people die in poverty is no different from watching a child drowning without offering any help, Singer goes on and concludes that affluent people have the moral duty to keep donating to the poor until an increment of money makes no further contribution.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
But another very large portion of individuals like Peter Singer who also use the utilitarian way of thinking arrive at the conclusion that we should alleviate world hunger because it would increase the aggregate happiness in the world(866). Peter Singer uses the drowning child analogy to justify his position. He argues that if a person sees a child that’s drawing, and that person is capable of saving the child, that person is obligated to do so(866). In this situation the outcome is that the child is obviously happy that someone saved him, the person who saved the child is slightly less happy because his clothes were ruined, but nevertheless both are alive and well. Singer goes on to explain that we should apply this sort of thinking when it comes to world hunger, He says that if our situation allows us to help those in need, we are obligated to do so.(866) Singer and other individuals with the same understanding of the situation are basing their argument on the principle of utility, which essentially says that our actions should produce the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 752). The principle of utility is the only thing that matters when it comes to Utilitarianism, an action is right if it ends
In philosophy, utilitarianism argues that a pleasure state of being is preferred over a painful state of being. Utilitarianism also notes that all human utility must be taken into account when making moral judgments. Using this moral theory allows us to think that all moral rules and actions should be determined by their worth and future outcome. Though the idea of “the greatest good for the greatest number” may seem moral and correct, the flaw in utilitarianism is that it allows us to use immoral judgments and actions to reach the desired outcome. This becomes a problem for “moral” decision making because we can use immoral actions to get a future outcome that is not necessarily promised.
Utilitarianism is an ethical system that states that one should make moral choices based on which moral option brings the most pleasure and for the most people. This system is a consequentialist one, meaning that means or actions do not matter; only the consequences or results of one’s actions determine if the choice made was morally right or wrong. Actions and decisions can only be evaluated by the results they produce. If someone’s actions result in more pain than pleasure, then that action is determined to be a morally wrong one; if an action results in the most pleasure for the most people, then it is considered morally good. This system can be hard to apply when evaluating and weighing moral options since it is a consequentialist system;
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
“Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethics—the outcome matters, not the act. Among those who focus on outcomes, the utilitarians’ distinguishing belief is that we should pursue the greatest good for the greatest number. So, we can act in whatever way we choose—we can be generous or miserly, honest or dishonest” (Brusseau, 2012, p.107). Basically, a utilitarian person is selfish, thinks to just himself and his own personal gain, if something is good for this person, doesn’t matter if it is bad for many others.
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.