Kantian Approaches To Some Famine Problems By Peter Singer

In this paper I will discuss the philosopher Onara O’Neill’s argument in “Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems” and the philosopher Peter Singer’s argument in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Specifically, I will discuss O’Neill’s and Singer’s views on the hot topic of global famine. While Singer as a Utilitarian believes that we have an obligation to minimize suffering and pain around the world, O’Neill believes that famine relief must not be done out of duty in order to avoid using others as means and not as ends in themselves. In this paper I will argue that Peter Singer is correct and that it is our duty as fellow human beings to reduce pain and suffering wherever possible, regardless of intent. First I will present Peter Singer’s view that

Kantians believe that someone should never use another person as a mere means but as an end in themselves. Using someone as a mere means is to use someone as a way to accomplish a goal of yours without them actively consenting to aiding you. When you use someone as a means, you deny the choice of their own autonomy which every person should have as a human being. Autonomy is the ability to decide whether or not you want to do something and also whether or not you agree or disagree to do something. In order to use someone as an end in themselves, you should not coerce or deceive them with false information in order to get something that you want like a specific outcome or an item. You need to provide them with the full and whole truth and then receive explicit consent from them in order for them to be regarded as autonomous and