Many individuals are reluctant about accepting their responsibilities to donate and question the importance of charity, while others believe that giving to others is an essential part of human nature. Nevertheless, assumptions are made based on how much people should give and to whom. Individuals presume that there is no requirement for charity as people earn money themselves and possess their own free will. However, in the essay, “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Australian philosopher, Peter Singer argues that humans are obligated to make a difference and contribute maximally without forfeiting either something of ethical relevance or anything of proportionate moral significance. Singer’s theory provides rationale, but his assertions are …show more content…
Singer continues and “ . . . begin[s] with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (Singer 231). He brings to the audience attention that most humans will agree with his previous statement, implying that the majority of readers are in agreeance with him on what is bad. To follow, Singer argues that if we have the ability to stop something bad from taking place, without doing anything immoral, neglecting to advance something of moral importance and bringing about anything else equally bad, we have to do it. Singer gives two principal corollaries: the idea that proximity does not matter and the concept that giving to other is not just charity, but moral duty. He believes that it is our moral responsibility to look behind our self-interests and support others who are suffering no matter their location. Singer’s essay highlights the importance of giving up enough without sacrificing anything of proportionate moral significance to prevent the misery and misfortune in the …show more content…
If we donated maximally to everyone suffering in poverty-stricken countries our economic foundation would be destroyed. Our economy is driven by the consumption of buyers. However, if the income of individuals is affected by the standards of charity outlined by Peter Singer, consumers would not be able to uphold their role in supporting economic growth through the purchase of normal and luxury goods. As a result of this, the economy would collapse and individuals would lose their jobs. If the job market declined, no one would be able to fulfill Singer’s ideology of preventing suffering. In fact, we wouldn’t be able to complete the normal societal standards of charity. In addition, our income would not be able to support the continuation of giving due to our creation of overpopulation in other countries. Giving maximumly would prevent priorly inevitable deaths of individuals around the world. Be that as it may, even though this is monumental, when there is greater longevity, the population of a country grows dramatically and a bigger population leads to more impoverished humans. Moreover, economic dependency is also created when an affluent country supports an indigent country. The economy of a poverty- stricken country such as Bengal, in the example given by Singer, will become dependent on donations to prevent famine. If expectations of donations are not met, the individuals and economy of such country
It is widely believed that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory action, while a duty is an obligatory action. Singer shares this view, but there are reason to think that he should not. Singer’s principle seems to imply that it should not be considered a voluntary action to create change and help those in need. And, not only does it only suggest that we should change the way we think, but it indicates that we should do everything that we can to minimize the suffering because it is our moral
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.
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
... aid across the world. As we have established that we do have an obligation to redistribute globally in a cosmopolitan perspective, distributing wealth however we may need to rethink what the best assistance is. Amaryta Sen conveys that before sending aid to the third world state, we would need to fully understand the limitation of freedom in the country. Redistributing wealth to global countries requires it to be evaluated by the economic shortage that they are suffering and to see whether it will be efficient in the long run. The more effective ways to contribute would be to international relief agencies or NGO’s that would pursue international development projects to help those in poverty or the alternative option by Tom Campbell’s idea of a ‘Global humanitarian levy’ which suggests a more appropriate taxation on all citizens to collectively aid those in need.
Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher whose solution to world poverty is overwhelmingly known globally. He has an excellent idea that is keenly and carefully looked into by many across the world. Peter clearly understands that the world poverty solution can only be addressed and solved if individuals from rich countries are willing and are in a position to offer their luxurious wealth to the needy. He, however, asserts that it is not necessary to spend money on assets like television, cars, movies, expensive meals, and brand new clothes as well (singer, 223).
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.
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.
Peter Singer wrote an essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” In this essay, he discusses whether or not we are personally responsible for the suffering (starvation) of others. Singer believes that if you have the means to do so, you are morally obligated to help others in need. He says that if suffering can be prevented without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then it should be done.
Critics for charity suggest three points: First, charity relieves the tension caused from an issue through money. Furthering to acknowledge that “giving to those who are lacking, shows you are grateful for what you have and want to help make sure that others have their needs met as well.” (Source A, Para. 8) Proposing that more good deeds occur through these charitable acts than the corruption caused. Second, critics may believe that the government fulfills its role in aiding those in need, and that charity also allows this system to help more people. With two sources of support, more people would be saved, and “Two hundred dollars… if it is true that this could help save one child's life… I think people who are able but do not donate should be condemned.” (Schaefer, Para. 7) When a simple solution is given for a need, ethically one should not ignore the opportunity to serve a better purpose. Third, critics also state that focusing on a specific group helps the most unfortunate and starts to take care of the root of the problem. Logistically helping those who are the most desperate is a convincing argument and that “through those acts of charitable giving, it makes the world a better place as those in need begin to possess a new outlook on life.” (Source A, Para. 4) Although detractors fail to recognize that money is deficient in stopping or solving the social issue. Countless times the same issues like
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.
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
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
For example, when an expensive car is broken into, society does not scoff at the owner's lack of charity because of the overpriced vehicle but at the vandalizing thief. This happens not only because of people’s skewed point of view but out of a utilitarianist manifestation. It is easier to act on a situation that gives instant gratification than one that does not, although ease and fulfillment are not considered to be factors in Singer’s argument it certainly affects the viewpoint of aid in relief efforts. Another part of changing the perspective on famine is to refine the way individuals see those issues relating to their world. By making something that is supererogatory, like charity, a moral duty then the aid in Bangladesh would be hypothetically
Peter Singer said; “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” (Famine, Affluence, and Morality). As human beings, we have a moral compulsion to help other people, despite the verity that they may be strangers, especially when whatever type of aid we may render can in no approach have a more significant consequence on our own life.