Peter Singer Famine Rhetorical Analysis

In Singer’s essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Singer argues his first position with the statement relatively affluent countries should be doing more to alleviate the suffering happening in lesser developed countries. (Singer 229) His second position is that it is necessary that we change how we view and define duty and supererogatory. Peter Singer’s first part of his argument states that “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 231) With this, Singer means that we should donate as much aid as a country and individually as we can without jeopardizing our own well-being. Singer’s second part to his argument

In this premise he gives the example of if he should feel less obliged to save the drowning child if on looking around and he sees other people that are no further away but are also doing nothing to save the child. This example points out the absurdity of the view that numbers lessen obligation. He also points out that the view of: “if everyone in circumstances like mine gave $5 to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees; there is no reason why I should give more than anyone else in the same circumstances as I am; therefore I have no obligation to give more than $5.” (233) This is argument appears sound until we notice that the premise is highly hypothetical because not everyone will give that five dollars that is necessary for the relief in Bengal, and you cannot assume that your five dollars will be enough to provide the relief needed. “Therefore by giving more than $5 I will prevent more suffering than I would if I gave just $5.” (233) Singer also points out another problem with this hypothetical situation. That it assumes that everyone is sending money simultaneously, and are also unexpected. But because those giving later will know how much money is needed and will only contribute the amount that is necessary to reach this

Singer’s controversial claim is that “we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.” To redefine “the traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not in the place we normally draw it.”(235) He states that the act of giving money to the Bengal Relief Fund is regarded as an act of charity and the bodies that collect the money are known as charities. In our society there is nothing wrong with not giving money to these charities and if you do give money then you are praised as generous. We also do not condemn people who spend their money on new clothes in the name of being fashionable, nor do we condemn those who buy a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. To describe how we as a society view giving our money to relief organizations. Singer uses the term “supererogatory” -an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong to not do. He claims “on the contrary, we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.” (235) Singer wants to revise our moral conceptual scheme. Singer’s view is controversial because he believes that our current way of drawing distinction between charity and duty, allows for a man living in affluence level, which most of us in more developed countries enjoy, to give money to save those who are suffering, cannot be supported. This is too drastic a revision of our moral scheme. “People do not ordinarily judge