Two Principles Of Famine By Peter Singer

904 Words4 Pages
Peter Singer states two principles on the effects of famine, affluence, and morality which he feels that everyone should abide by. The first argument made is that lack of food, shelter and medicine is bad and can lead to feeling pain and death. I for one, could agree on this assumption just by analyzing it carefully. We see Singer on his thesis elaborate the causes of famine within East Bengal in 1970s. As governments and individuals within the world see the massive flooding’s and mismanagement of food issuing one hopes that we all as a society could take action to help stop such suffering and act on a situation like the impaired damage that happened with East Bengal. This then leads to Singer’s second argument; is if it is in our power to…show more content…
Yes us as humans are raised to tell what is morally right in charity and duty, but at the same time the strong principle of its self has complications because us as a society we are all different in the market of the world, in reality not everyone can equally do their same part because of differences which I will later discuss more down in this paper. As this relates to sustainability challenges, I for one think it fall in the long line of both sides. Sustainability issues are hard to scale just due to how wicked a problem can be, but yes can be helped by our rightful duty and charity to contribute forward. Population control and growth is an example of a challenge that has impacted climate change and has led to scares resources. Using Singer’s principles, it should be in our power to prevent this challenge because of his utilitarian views. We are morally obligated to help and change but I in a way disagree because it limits human freedoms like for example religion and rights. Like China and Japan those countries have hit an amount of certain rights especially in women. In many countries women don’t have the rights to birth controls which is a large reason our population has increases so largely. But a solution would be we can use the fairness of choice to maybe decrease rate but that could just be theoretical knowing in certain countries and situations there are stick
Open Document