Peter Singer Famine Essay

Peter Singer, in his reading, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” asserts valid arguments that hopefully make his readers sympathetic to the famine problem. It is not something you think about every day, even if you see homeless people begging for food or money. Singer said that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (p. 519). I think the word “bad” is putting it mildly. It is inexcusable to ignore this predicament of the poor. His next argument is “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” (p. 519). If we can make a difference in helping the less fortunate than us, then what is stopping us? Most people probably think that their

Singer goes on to explain that people need to put their priorities in order and become more charitable. They need to feel the moral obligation to take action. We view charity as supererogatory, defined as “an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do” (p. 521). In other words, it is up to your own discretion based on your own values and morals. Sadly, often humans take the lazy approach, and if it does not benefit them, they do not do it. But that statement shows that we need to change people’s views on donating to charities. Singer concludes by saying that donating has been just one thing that can be done to fight famine; but we also need to take other long-term measures. One suggestion was “that the best means of preventing famine, in the long run, is population control” (p. 524). I have another suggestion that I will discuss later in this paper, but Singer’s arguments are valid and support my thesis that anyone who has the means and resources to help, needs to come to the aid of those in need. It is not just one person’s crusade, it is everyone’s, and every single person can make a