Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

In “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Peter Singer offers a critique on the ordinary ways of thinking about famine relief as he highlights the potential implications of accepting what can most accurately be defined as utilitarianism as a guide for conduct. The moral philosophy Singer conveys in this text are most closely related and comparable to the ideas of nineteenth-century English philosopher, John Stuart Mill as Singers’ approach is utilitarian rather than deontological. Despite their similarities, the ideas of Singer and J.S Mill contain many discrepancies, especially with regard to whether they lean towards act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism. Although Singer and Mill both adhere to a consequentialist theory as their moral philosophy,

For one, it limits our freedom to act as to do what Singer demands, that is, make the morally best choice would vastly reduce our freedom to make our own life choices as self-governing moral beings. In practice, utilitarianism, generally requires people to predict the long term consequences of an action, however, there is no guarantee that circumstances will turn out precisely as predicted. In the case of assistance to those in poverty, it is rather obvious that it is to a strong degree, universally good to help. Nonetheless, utilitarianism is not merely a theory for the moral solution to famine, so in other circumstances and even in the case of a poverty situation, it fails to consider different views on what happiness is. Not only that, but the theory is rather simplistic as it cannot solve every dilemma since without a doubt, every problem is unique. For instance, if the theory which Singer promotes is the way in which we must judge morality, then it would appear that if one has $200, one should give it to Oxfam rather than spend it on dining out for a month: “what is one month's dining out, compared to a child's life?” (P. Singer 226). While one’s happiness would be increased if one dined out, it would be outweighed by the happiness one could cause by donating the money instead. Singer almost exclusively compares dining out for one’s own happiness with the happiness of the people one donates to therefore, he ignores other variables in one’s dining experience such as the restaurant staff, which one essentially contributes to when they dine out. In other words, Singer pays minimal heed to the economic effects which can potentially occur if all were to act in accordance to his moral philosophy as in if everyone were to abstain from eating out, restaurants would eventually lay off staff leading to unemployment, or simply put,