Analysis Of Famine, Affluence, And Morality, By Peter Singer

735 Words2 Pages

Peter Singer, the author of Famine, Affluence, and Morality is an Australian philosopher who wanted to end suffering and death. Not only is Singer a philosopher he is a utilitarianism defendant. Singer argues about people suffering from death, lack of food and shelter, and medical care is bad and how it can be prevented. He also, argues that we could help to prevent this from happening.
Singer explains the issues that are going on in the world but, he particularly focuses on East Bengal because, “constant poverty, cyclone, and a civil war had turned at least nine million people into destitute refugees.” After he listed each way these issues could be prevented or not caused at all he then tells how the United States and other countries do
I think if all of the wealthy people would put themselves in the place of a person who is in poverty they would want someone to help them. I am all for this idea because it could possibly prevent lack of food, shelter, and medication. Singer’s second idea, “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” I agree with Singer that it is bad and I wish people didn’t have to go through it. I feel like no one should have to go without food because millions of restaurants throw away food everyday. The United States and other countries are very wasteful. I think we should give that food to those who are in poverty. Singer’s third idea, members of societies or group that are wealthy should make it their duty to donate money to prevent bad things from happening. Affluent societies should help countries who are in poverty. Not only is it the moral thing to do but, it is the christian thing to do. Every since I was little I was taught to help others to the best of my

Open Document