...Famine, Affluence, and Morality Terry Simmons PHI 208 Instructor: Stephen Carter January 28, 2013 Famine, Affluence, and Morality Peter Singer opens his argument by introducing the reader to a famine in Bengal setting up his first premise stating “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad”. (Singer, 1972) Singer elaborates to say this is merely one point of view and that some “people can hold all sorts of eccentric positions, and perhaps from some of them it would not follow that death by starvation is in itself bad.” (Singer, 1972) He continues to say that for this discussion it will be assumed all accept the above argument. The next argument continues with “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, 1972). Singer gives an example of what this would entail, “if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.” (Singer, 1972) He then points out that there are flaws in our way of thinking (Singer, 1972). The socially acceptable standard is that we would offer help to one who is physically near us, simply because of the close proximity. The flaw lies in the fact that we are less motivated to help someone who is further...
Words: 918 - Pages: 4
...“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” PHI208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning (GSP1309J) Instructor: Kathleen Andrews November 10, 2013 In Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", he argues that the way people in relative affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified. His reason for saying this is due to his belief in his principle "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally to do it". I disagree with his point of view and I will provide explanations as well as bring in my own arguments to show why I refuse to accept his said conclusion. Singer begins with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad. Therefore, according to his principle, we must to our best prevent situations such as that in Bengal where people die from lack of food, shelter and medical care, from happening without sacrificing anything comparably important. We could deny this assumption but in doing so, we would not be honest to ourselves. Assuming the Principle of Universalizability, he claims that it makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards away or a Bengali stranger who is ten thousand yards away. I will challenge this assumption by modifying his example: There are two people drowning in a pool, one is your cousin and...
Words: 592 - Pages: 3
...RUNNING HEAD: FAMINE, AFFLUENCE, AND MORALITY 1 Famine, Affluence, and Morality Keith Campbell PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Instructor Ronald Davenport June 30, 2013 FAMINE, AFFLUENCE, AND MORALITY 2 Peter Singer argues what the moral implications of any situation like this and how people all around the world sit back watching while little is being done to help, and many of innocent people die without a care in the world. While we all know people dying from starvation is bad, the moral thing to do is help as long as it does not cause harm to others, why should we sit back and do nothing. The goal in this article is to get people all around the world to realize the magnitude of the issues that people are dying of things that we at home take for granted, such as, the lack of food, shelter, and medical care. These things are vital to the survival of humans no matter where they live and what the state of their government is in. Singer also argues how affluent nations respond to situations such as the one in Bengal and presents us with a view of the moral issues at hand. The first counter argument is that according to Singer, (1971) “the view that numbers do make a difference”. This view implies that a wealthy person donates five dollars to help those suffering in Bengal the money would add up if everyone gave this amount. This would...
Words: 933 - Pages: 4
...Famine, Affluence, and Morality PHI208 Daniel Beteta March 25, 2013 Famine, Affluence, and Morality Giving to charity usually is viewed as a generous act, most people who give to charitable causes are held in high regard and thought of as good people, the question peter singer is asking us to consider in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is where is the moral grey area between charity and obligation when it comes to giving up what we have for others. Who in society decides what is good but not wrong to not do as charity is considered. I can achieve this by looking at Singers arguments, counterarguments and concept of marginal utility while comparing how duty and charity change in the article. The article opens by detailing the famine East Bengal is experiencing in 1971 in details and lists the causes of the Famine, and the number of refugees that amounts to roughly 9 million. Then he lists the affluent nations who are doing basically nothing to help these people, the citizens are not donating or protesting and the governments even if giving to the relief are not doing enough. “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 in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing there refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs.”(Singer, 1972) From the start his...
Words: 1245 - Pages: 5
...Famine, Affluence, and Morality Giving to charity usually is viewed as a generous act, most people who give to charitable causes are held in high regard and thought of as good people, the question peter singer is asking us to consider in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is where is the moral grey area between charity and obligation when it comes to giving up what we have for others. Who in society decides what is good but not wrong to not do as charity is considered. I can achieve this by looking at Singers arguments, counterarguments and concept of marginal utility while comparing how duty and charity change in the article. The article opens by detailing the famine East Bengal is experiencing in 1971 in details and lists the causes of the Famine, and the number of refugees that amounts to roughly 9 million. Then he lists the affluent nations who are doing basically nothing to help these people, the citizens are not donating or protesting and the governments even if giving to the relief are not doing enough. “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 in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing there refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs.”(Singer, 1972) From the start his first argument is that of the drowning child, he states that if he sees a...
Words: 1235 - Pages: 5
...Famine, Affluence, and Morality Famine, Affluence, and Morality In this article Peter Singer’s goal is to shed light and bring awareness to the way people in the world are suffering due to poverty and natural disasters. He also explains how many people struggle to survive because they live below the poverty line, some on a dollar a day. Singer makes the point that we should be doing more to help those who are not in the position to help themselves. By using Bengal as an example of how richer countries react to a disaster Singer is able to prove his point (Singer, 1972). Singer addresses the issues of why people do not donate. He says some people have the belief that it is the government’s responsibility to provide aid to those in need. He later states that it is a joint effort between us the citizens and the government to come to the rescue of those who are suffering. We live in a selfish society that believes that we should only take care of our own and not worry about others. Reliance on aid is one reason why people do not donate because they believe the society in need will become dependent on that service (Singer, 1972). In his article he also argues that people are morally obligated to prevent as least some suffering by personally taking action. Singer says that it is in our power to prevent bad things and we can prevent the without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. If we have the resources to do so, we the people...
Words: 723 - Pages: 3
...Famine, Affluence, and Morality PHI 208 September 2, 2013 Famine, Affluence, and Morality Peter Singer’s article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, is both simplistic and unrealistic. Throughout this article Singer compares the ability to give to relief funds to a situation of coming upon a drowning child. Singer mentions arguments against giving to relief funds and then debunks the logic. Many feel the idea of giving to another country seems wrong when we have so many in close proximity to us, that also need help. As Signer said, the relief need of places such a Bengal is far worse than what we have in the United States. Any of Singer’s attempts to change the views of charity vs. duty seemed very radicle. To say we all have an obligation to assist in every situation is absurd. Everyone can agree that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad. If we have the power to prevent these bad things, are we not obligated to sacrifice everything we can to do so? This seems clear that morally we are obligated to prevent things we have the power to prevent. Yet there are so many situations that people make exceptions on and where morality and reason is challenged. Singer gives a scenario, a child drowning in a pond; you sacrifice the $70 worth of clothes that you are wearing to save the child. Then he says child in Bengal is in need of food, shelter, medical care, and $70 would go a long way for this child to also save its life. Yet people are less...
Words: 1424 - Pages: 6
...In his article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” Peter Singer gives a seemingly devastating critique of our selfish, self-centred ways of thinking about famine relief, charity, and morality in general. Not many people have accepted his conclusions which effectively state that those better off in life should as a matter of morality change their psyche and donate their excess wealth to the point of marginal utility and reduce their stature to that of others not well off and this is also the utilitarian principle. Singer gives the example of the Bengal famine of 1971 wherein over 9 million refugees suffered severely, neither governments nor individuals worldwide did anything near to what would be required to relieve it and this could not be condoned in terms of unawareness of the event, would my contribution be delivered to those in need who were very far away or arguments such as how can I as an individual make a difference if others are tight fisted and do not seem to care or consider it obligatory and also the root cause of suffering is population and famine is only an outcome so let us tackle and spend money on the root cause rather than the symptom. Singer puts forward two principles – first, suffering and death are bad and secondly if one is in a position to prevent a morally bad state of affairs, without sacrificing something of roughly equal moral importance, one should do so. He uses these to build the case that all of us including governments are not doing enough and...
Words: 325 - Pages: 2
...In “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Peter Singer’s main argument is that everyone has a moral obligation to do something good for those that lack medical care, shelter and food. Singer believes that we could all do something to help without harming one’s self. He does not want anyone to be harmed, that is why Singer believes that suffering in any other form of famine deaths is absolutely wrong. To Singer, he has a strong feeling that everyone has the power to prevent all of this from happening. That is why his main argument in his article is “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without hereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally to do it.” (Singer) His main hypothetical case is the child...
Words: 354 - Pages: 2
...Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Harold N. Johnson PHI 208 Elliott Crozart February 3, 2014 In the article Peter Singer gives a critique of our ordinary ways of thinking about famine relief, charity, and morality in general. With the conclusions he draws from the article, very little action is taken. The fact presented by him answers no questions and presents zero conviction. His main goal or idea is to present you with his arguments and persuade people and the government to help with famine relief in the location he describes in the article. His argument was that the current policies in place that people and the government adhere to are not moral. So his arguments admit of a partial answer, and once properly qualified may produce some conviction. His position is supported by what he recalls as reactions to the famine, he feels more can be done. Counter arguments from the text describes the Bengals as being isolated from civilization, this may be the reason the people in less rural areas and the government cannot seek more suitable aid for them. This may be true, but famine ravages areas of more notoriety and the same result usually happens. Another argument against the article was the fact that many other societies and impoverished people require the same help, so why should one charity be place in front of another? Furthermore another counter of Singers’ argument was that society, people or governments will have to radically change their moral...
Words: 894 - Pages: 4
...Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Dora Crawford Prof. David Tredinnick 12/19/2012 When it comes to the article "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" mostly argues about not one but more than several things. In some point most people can agree with his arguments unlike others whom may not see his point of view. One of these arguments was lack of food. This was brought up or inspired by the starvation of Bangladesh his main focus was that if one can use one's wealth to reduce suffering for example, by aiding famine-relief efforts without any significant reduction in the well-being of oneself or others, it is immoral not to do so. According to Singer, such inaction is clearly immoral. If a child is drowning in a shallow pond and someone can save it but chooses not to; nor does placing greater geographical distance between the person in need and the potential helper reduce the latter's moral obligations. “It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. Previously, this may hardly have been feasible, but it is quite feasible now. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society.” Singers main...
Words: 1782 - Pages: 8
...Argument Analysis Two In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, he is observing how there are many people in our world suffering, and argues what morality says one should do about this. After going into the context of the situations at hand with millions of people living on unsustainable incomes etc., Singer proposes two principles, the strongest one he favors and a weaker one he uses as a backup. He agrees with the idea that morally one should always do whatever would prevent the greatest amount of bad from occurring unless the only way to do so is by doing something also morally wrong. Ultimately, Peter provides examples to prove how realistic and current his argument is, and characterizes the relationship between obligation...
Words: 485 - Pages: 2
...Should we give money in charity to person’s around the world who might be in great need? Well, Peter Singer and Garrett Hardin can very easily answer this question. Both these men have written different articles on their point of view towards this issue. Peter Singer wrote the article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. This article is about that it’s our moral obligation to give money to people who are in need. Singer said, “…the idea that giving away a great deal of money is the best means to this end” (239). He believes that it is our duty to help those in need. When it comes down to it though we shouldn’t judge those who haven’t given their money. Also, we shouldn’t donate more than we have because if we do then we will become some of the needy. But, what it comes down to is, we need...
Words: 609 - Pages: 3
...Peter Singer’s main argument in his essay “Famine Affluence and Morality” is that we, in affluent countries, have a moral obligation to give equally and substantially to those suffering across the globe. Thus, he would refute any claim that there is moral justification for people to care more about those close by than those far away. His Principle of Sacrifice highlights this idea: 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 1971: 231] Whilst Singer’s principle appears to make sense, as long as we agree with his first premise that suffering resulting from ‘lack of food shelter and medical care are bad’, it does not explain why people do tend to care more about the suffering of those close by than those far away. As humans we seem to have an innate moral inclination to help those who are suffering, for example when we see a child crying because they have hurt...
Words: 1649 - Pages: 7
...Running Head: Peter Singer’s Beliefs 1 In reading his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer gives us a seemingly devastating critiques of our ordinary ways of thinking in regards to famine relief, charity, and morality in general. In the spite of this there are some very few people that have accepted, or at any rate acted on, the conclusions he has reached. In aspect of these facts one could possible say of Singer’s arguments, as Hume said of Berkeley’s arguments for immaterialism, that “ they admit of no answer and produce no conviction.” In which I believe that Singer’s considerations show that people should do what would be considerably more than most people would actually do, people do not establish Singer’s conclusions in their full strength or generality. So Singer’s arguments may admit to partial answers, and possibly once properly qualified may produce some conviction. In the article Singer argues that the people who live in affluent countries must radically change their way of life as well as their conception of morality, so that they will become committed to helping those that are in need. Singer begins by asking us to consider cases of famine, like that in Bengal in 1971, Singer argues that the majority of people have a moral obligation to donate all we can possibly to the famine relief, and seeing that the people were suffering tremendously and either the government nor the individuals was doing anything near what was required to help...
Words: 1376 - Pages: 6
