Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. 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. Singer admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...
... middle of paper ...
...morally justified our future actions. This entire proposal is not here to tell society what is being done at the current state, but it is telling you what you are obligated to do as a human being. If we took the moral standpoint, as we should, at all times when making decisions, we would find that moral justification would take a backseat to obligation.
We as a society have acted upon our obligations in the past, such as during World War 2, yet the occasional dose of action is not what we are supposed to desire as humans. We can not say “I will help these people who are being abused today, yet these people yesterday are on their own.”. Moral obligation is not something so fickle as we wish to make it seem. Although the proposal I have left you with is tough to chew on, it is the right principle to act upon if we are to improve human life and live morally good lives.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- 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.... [tags: morally required obligations to those in need]
1493 words (4.3 pages)
- In this paper I will examine both Peter Singer’s and Onora O 'Neill 's positions on famine relief. I will argue that O’Neill’s position is more suitable than Singer’s extreme standpoint. First I will, present O’Neill’s argument. I will then present a possible counter-argument to one of my premises. Finally I will show how this counter-argument is fallacious and how O’Neill’s argument in fact goes through. In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides.... [tags: Utilitarianism, Ethics, Jeremy Bentham]
1016 words (2.9 pages)
- In the article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer expresses his displeasure with people not preventing bad things from happening, even when it is within their power. Spending money on buying extravagant goods instead of giving it to the needy seems to be a foreign concept to him. He questions how human beings can be so inhumane to ignore other’s sufferings. Singer is an utilitarian and believes in lending aid to the underprivileged. Through his paper, Singer argues that well-to-do people are morally obligated to help the impoverished.... [tags: Morality, Ethics, Philosophy of life, Obligation]
702 words (2 pages)
- “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements.... [tags: Peter Singer]
2018 words (5.8 pages)
- In this essay I will be arguing why a utilitarian could possibly disagree with Peter Singers Argument presented in “Famine, Affluence and Morality.” After reading such an interesting paper I must say as much as I disagreed with Singers viewpoints I almost found it difficult to object them with support. From a utilitarian point of view we are to maximize Happiness by reducing suffering. How can Giving possible make someone unhappy. But as I was thinking a saying came across my mind, “Two steps forward one step back”.... [tags: utilitarian, philosophy, happiness]
939 words (2.7 pages)
- ... Here lies the major difference between the two – a duty is something that must be done in order for the existence of society, whereas charity is voluntary and uncompelled. It is this distinction that Singer wishes to erase, or at least blur. He wants to make monetary help to the distant needy a dutiable action rather than charity on a moral level. In fact, Singer proposes that everyone who possesses a reasonable amount of resources must donate a significant portion of their wealth and assets, reducing their self to “the level of marginal utility” (Singer 32).... [tags: Peter Singer's article Famine]
1260 words (3.6 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.... [tags: Morality, Ethics, Human, Religion]
904 words (2.6 pages)
- In response to the recent failure of the international community to prevent the famine crisis in the Horn of Africa since July 2011, Suzanne Dvorak the chief executive of Save the Children wrote that, “We need to provide help now. But we cannot forget that these children are wasting away in a disaster that we could - and should - have prevented” she added, “The UN estimates that every $1 spent in prevention saves $7 in emergency spending.” (Dvorak, 2011). Many people who read such statement wonder about our obligation towards famine relief, and ask, whether we are morally obliged to spend one dollar in order to prevent such a crisis or not.... [tags: Article Analysis ]
1822 words (5.2 pages)
Should People Living in more Affluent Countries Have the Moral Obligation to Provide for the Poor in Other Parts of the World
- In this paper I will look at the argument made by Peter Singer in his paper, “Famine, Affluence and Morality” which advocates that those people living in more affluent countries have a moral obligation to provide assistance to the poor in other parts of the world. I will first outline the basic premise of Singer’s argument supporting this moral obligation and whether it is a sound argument. Secondly, I will look at an alternative view provided by Garrett Hardin in his paper, “Living on a Lifeboat”, which suggests that maintaining one’s own self-interest is more important and, in fact, necessary to prevent our own downfall.... [tags: analysing Peter Signer's argument]
1165 words (3.3 pages)
- “The Singer Solution to Poverty” by Peter Singer and “Facing Famine” by Tom Haines, are both dealing with the same issues but the only difference between the two authors are that they use different tactics in which to address the problem and also attempt to get assistance from others. Although both authors intentions are the same, Haines has a much better strategy of getting the sympathy attention from his audience rather than making them feel guilty for living an average life. The author Peter Singer argues that there is no reason why Americans can’t donate money if they are able to afford luxurious material/products that are not essential to their lives and health.... [tags: Ethics, Peter Singer]
1361 words (3.9 pages)