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.
Singer takes on many assumptions, inferring that if one can agree with each assumption they will also agree with the conclusion. He observes that in a general sense, suffering and death due to a shortage on food, shelter and medicine is bad. The next is that if it is within our power to do something without something else bad happening and without ceding anything of equal moral consequence then we are therefore responsible to do it. This requires us only to keep out the bad and not necessarily to promote the good. Though the idea seems relatively uncontroversial, it is ambiguous. The principle does not take into account the space between those in need and the potential help or if there is only one person or a whole host of people with the ability to help....
... middle of paper ...
...ought to be doing as a law abiding citizen, I should not be required to donate my money to a cause I do not support. I may have the right and ability but I should not have the obligation because there is no positive rights understanding or contract between myself and the people in Bengal (in this case). It still seems to me illogical to NOT give, simply because you have no reason not to. I just don’t believe that I am morally obligated to toss my money in an unknown direction just because someone makes me feel guilty. In a side by side comparison, Arthur seems to be more pragmatic and reasonable than Singer. The ideals that he presents in his article are much more realistic and attainable than those that Singer assembles. Considering the realism of the situation it makes it much more logical to side with Arthur and his points so that we can obtain actual results.
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. Throughout his essay, Singer argues that we must reject the common sense view of giving to charity. The common sense view of giving to charity is one that is supererogatory; it is not obligated for us as a society to give to charity, however, we should if we want to.
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 organizes his arguments into an outline form allowing a reader to take individual thoughts, adding them together giving a “big picture.” Within the first few pages, Singer shares two guiding assumptions in regards to his argument to which I stated above. The first assumption states “that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (231). Singer steps away from the typical writing style; he states the assumption yet he does not give a personal comment in regards to the assumption. He chooses to do so because the assumption itself is surely uncontroversial; most people would agree, but to those who don’t agree, there are so many possibilities at which to arrive to this assumption that, after all, if they don’t yet comprehend its truth, it would be hard to convince them of its accuracy. Speaking for myself, if I encountered an individual that does not agree to the assumption that death by avoidable causes is bad; I would not hesitate to declare them of being heartless. There are many cases, whether across oceans on foreign land or areas to which we live, where people are dying because of inescapable, unfortunate reasons. Within such cases, even a possible little voice in the back of the head can lead one to wonder who has the responsibility of helping those who are enduring such unnecessary deaths. This sense of wonder leads us to Singer’s second assumption; “if it is in our power to prevent something from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (231). To better clarify what this assumption is looking for, Singer points out that “It requires u...
response to the Singer. Cullity argues that Singer’s conclusion, that we ought to help others in need so long as this does not cause any significant damage to ourselves, is severely demanding, as it is essentially arguing that we are morally obligated to help everybody in the world. The only way in which we would be able to justify not helping somebody who needed our help would be if doing so would put the person helping at significant risk. Cullity argues in his paper that Singer’s argument is asking too much of people when it claims that donating to aid agencies is a moral obligation and that not doing so would be immoral. His main way of doing so is by rejecting the Severe Demand.
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
Saint Augustine once said, “Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others.” (Augustine). Augustine's belief that it is the duty of the individual to assist those less fortunate than themselves is expressed in the essay "The Singer Solution to World Poverty" by Peter Singer. Singer shares his conviction that those living in luxury should support those struggling to survive in poverty. Singer adopts the persona of a sage utilitarian philosopher who judges the morality of actions based on the consequences that are wrought by them. Singer utilizes powerful pathos, rhetorical questions, ethos, and a bold tone which contributes to his purpose of persuading his intended audience of American consumers to live only on necessity rather than luxury as well as to donate their discretionary income to the impoverished.
... aiding the suffering people in third world countries like Bengal, that it captures the reader’s attention. While I believe Singer’s suggestion, that affluent people must donate all they can to the verge of almost starving themselves, is rather extreme, absurd and counter productive, I also think the essay serves a greater purpose, which is to help affluent people realise how much they take for granted, and how much of their wasted money can be used to prevent people from starving. It can be understood that although most of Singer’s premises sound good in a perfect Marxist society, in a realistic world, most people are greedy and only work to better themselves. The fact that we live in a 0.6% world (0.6% of the world population holds most of global assets, thus making them the richest 0.6%) is evidence enough to conclude that this is a self-improvement driven world.
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
Singer’s argument may have swayed many people to donate their dispensable income to children in need despite the fact that it has many fundamental flaws. He argues that we should give away the majority of our earnings to charity. Since Singer wants the reader to donate such a large amount of money, the readers are given no choice but to contribute nothing whatsoever. His solution is not realistic and does not take into account the long-term financial impact this type of donation contribution system would have on a country’s economy.
Peter Singer’s position in his work “The Obligation to Assist”, is that all people are morally obligated to help one another without it causing any additional harm. He refers to “comparable moral significance”, which means that helping another must not cause anything worse to happen, or be a morally wrong action in and of itself, and must also be done if a comparably awful event can be stopped. His first premise is that if absolute poverty is wrong, and it can be stopped without worse consequences, then it should be stopped altogether. His second premise is that if you were to see a drowning child, you would help them out of the lake, even if your coat happens to get wet. His third premise is that morals do not need to be examined, as the need to help others should be logical without examining the morality behind it. His final premise is that the First World is rich enough to reduce poverty, and can therefore feel obligated to help. The implication of this position is that no matter what situation surrounds the person in need of help, another person would be obligated to assist them. Thusly, people who could help without having to forgo “comparable moral significance” and refrain from
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to
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.