Famine, Affluence, And Morality

Read Complete Research Material



Famine, Affluence, and Morality



Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Introduction

In this paper we are going to critically analyse the article Famine, Affluence, and Morality written by Famine, Affluence, and Morality.

Anaalysis

In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Peter Singer argues that affluent individuals, in fact, almost all of us are living deeply immoral lives by not contributing to the relief and prevention of famine. The causes of famine are various and include human wrongdoing, but this doesn't matter, according to Singer. What matters is that each of us can minimize the effects of the famines that are now occurring and can take steps to prevent those that might occur. As we go about our daily business, living our comfortable lives, millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of children throughout the world, are suffering and dying. Singer believes, however, that it is a moral obligation to relieve famine. He says, "At the individual level, people have, with very few exceptions, not responded to the situation in any significant way. Generally speaking, people have not given large sums to relief funds; they have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased government assistance; they have not demonstrated the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing the refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs" (789). Singer thinks that we, as a society, have done little to help those in need and could actually contribute more.

Although he presents many sound arguments, the reality of his proposals are admirable but impracticable and will never exist.

First, it is very important to determine who decides what we ought morally to do and what we are obligated to do. If one has the resources to donate to a charitable cause, are they absolutely obligated to do so? According to Singer, who claims, "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," the answer to this question is yes. If true, then anyone who has ever had the means to help a charitable cause but chose not do so, has neglected the interests of humankind.

Before reading Singers essay, I had no idea about what was going on in Bengal, or in any other third world country for that matter. Needless to say, I do not think many other Americans know about these countries and their conditions. It's not because I do not care, or that most other people do not care, it is the fact that we, as citizens of the United States, have our own priorities and hardships. Singer states that "It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall I never know, ten thousand miles away." Most people are visual persons and need to see something to believe it. The people who have the funds to support a cause are much more likely to give to a charity within ...
Related Ads