Free Essay

Peter Singer Famine

In: Philosophy and Psychology

Submitted By brabb
Words 1782
Pages 8
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 issue was can you be helpful without wanting too or can you help someone without wanting but still can help a very good example was the kid in pond, you can be at near inches but not wanting to help the kid is a big difference from wanting to help the same kid miles away. 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. It is in our power to prevent this bad thing. We can prevent it without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. The only way to prevent lack of food & shelter without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance is to give maximally (or at least very much more than we currently do). When it comes to doing the right thing, it is more than reasonable if you see that someone is struggling with doors having hand full of grocery bag opening the door is just doing the right thing when the argument started it was more or less not only doing the smallest right things but to go out more than our way to help someone out in majority’s needs. I can most definitely agree with this because there have been more than several incident s in which I had difficulty helping someone out that did not involve in my residing living or the people in which are usually around I had found it difficult because it was someone that I would think would not need help but yet I was wrong to judge a guy with extreme strength to actually need help picking objects up because I would always see the sir everyday lifting weights. Well, come to find out that just because your extremely strong does not mean you have the brains to get stuff right. The guy eventually asked for help and so I did but doing a charity compared to actually extending out a major hand to feed someone is way different from it.
When it comes to charity most people think that giving a couple of pennies is not doing anything. There are many different types of charity; some people help out in churches and communities to make it a better place to live in, other people help foundations and volunteer and not expect to get paid for the work that they have given. Some charity can also be paid but the morals to actually doing something are having incentive to actually do the work. Showing that you care without expecting any type of reward to me Singer’s analysis requires us to do a great deal for others. Also rethinking their views about "Charity." I believe that’s what morality requires. In fact, it's a very traditional view; it was advocated by Thomas Aquinas. We need to give direct relief now and should also promote population control. When it comes to Singer’s idea of giving direct relief and promoting population control, most people can realize that it would hurt our economy This does not support the status quo (a mere one% going to famine relief). Instead, it opens the door to discussions of how far to increase relief. We should give to the level that does not reduce spending in a consumption-based society (like ours) below the point that would start to decrease what we have available to give. So expecting people to give 1% is far too little, but expecting twenty five% from everyone would be too much. It is most definitely crazy to expect the American people with such tight economy to give more than they have a not necessarily give more than what we have but instead making a part of our everyday bills. I believe that most people would not allow this in such matter that it would hurt the economy even more. Another thing is that when people think of charity or their mere one percent is that they think it makes a difference it does if it was accumulated everyday but it is mostly around festive holidays and medicine that it would be brought up.
To me like the reader that the suffering of an individual is per say bad to the other individual. It is true that the suffering is bad to that individual, but is it necessarily bad for the other so that he may act to rectify this bad? It is clear that the suffering to the sufferer is bad in itself but it is a little less clear if the suffering is bad to the other remote party. We can definitely also infer that the suffering of an individual is bad to the other so long as the other bears a special relationship with the sufferer. The suffering of a child due to the lack of necessities is bad not just for the child, but also to his mother-not simply because she has certain responsibilities towards her child, but also because her well-being is closely dependent on the best of her child. Now when it comes to someone different and no relation to the child it is said that it would be difficult to save the child if drowning in a shallow pond. Singer, along with his distance claim, points out that the number of individuals in the situation to provide aid does not bear any significance. I feel in this regard, Singer out rightly rubbishes any person that subscribes to the above argument. Singer states the fact that although many are in the same position, not acting still does not relieve our obligation. Singer once again cleverly states: “Again, of course, I admit that there is a psychological difference between the cases; one feels less guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others, similarly placed, who have also done nothing. Yet this can make no real difference to our moral obligations. Should I consider that I am less obliged to pull the drowning child out of the pond if on looking around I see other
People, no further away than I am who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing? One has only to ask this question to see the absurdity of the view that numbers lessen obligation.”
Singer in his rebuttal to such a number of arguments states that although they are many people in the same or perhaps even better situations than an individual to provide aid, it does not relieve the underlying obligation of one to help in a way that seems proportionate to each individual. The duty is not that we match the highest donor, but donate what we owe to ourselves to give individually. Overall I do believe that Singers arguments are in fact agreeable because you would not expect someone out the way or someone not related to help out in most definitely something that going out the way would actually jeopardize or affect them in any way would not be something you would see every day. As well as putting more effort in donations to make sure not everyone starves in the world like how he brought it up with the starving country.

Reference philosophy.stanford.edu/apps/stanfordphilosophy/.../raley.pdf aaaaarg.org/.../Unger-Peter-Living-High-and-Letting-Die-Our-.. dspace.unav.es/dspace/bitstream/10171/7204/1/Abboud.pdf sophistryandillusion.com
Hi Dora
I appreciate your work here. You provided an appropriate explanation of Singer’s purpose in writing the article. You also adequately provided three counter arguments in conjunction with Singer’s response, although your organization and presentation of the different arguments was fair at best. Your definition of marginal utility was missing, but you did a good job of presenting your own views on the issue.
Your paper a bit too many errors in writing. Continue to work on grammar and sentence formation. This will make your paper more cohesive and easy to read.
In regards to APA format, your reference page was formatted incorrectly. It is also important that you include citations whenever referring to the work of another.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Dr. Tredinnick

Total Given
The student explains Singer’s purpose in writing the article and presents argument on the issue. 1.5 1.5
The student explains three counter-arguments to
Singer’s position as well as Singer’s responses to those counter-arguments. 2 1.5
The student defines Singer’s concept of marginal utility and identifies how it relates to Singer’s argument. 1 0
The student compares how the ideas of duty and charity change in Singer’s proposed world. 1 .7
The student presents his or her own response to
Singer’s argument. 1 1
The paper includes an introduction paragraph which contains a thesis statement. 0.5 .2
The paper includes well-developed paragraphs which fully-support the topic. 1 1
The paper includes a concluding paragraph which restates the thesis. 0.5 .5
The paper is grammatically correct with respect to correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. 0.5 .2
The student uses two scholarly resources 0.5 .5
The paper must be three double-spaced pages, formatted according to APA style 0.5 .3 TOTAL 10 7.4

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Whose Job Is Famine Relief

...Whose Job is Famine Relief? PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning December 12, 2012 Everyday on television one will view several commercials about giving to another country, to help the starving children. When Peter Singer wrote his article in 1971“Famine, Affluence and Morality” he was able to give a disastrous review of what readers may ordinarily think about different things such as charity and famine relief and if it is moral. Why is there so much famine around the world? Some put blame on lack of food and shelter with no medical care. Others believe that if there was a population control put in place that this perhaps would solve the issue of famine, with as long as these severely poor countries are still giving birth to children, famine becomes a vicious circle. Is it really the obligations of those who live in wealthier countries to support those in other countries? Should these countries make sure their own people are taken care of first? This is the argument that Mr. Singer presents in his paper. One has the moral obligation is to help others in need whether it be a cup of coffee or assisting in drilling a well for water and no matter if they are next door or across the world. With three different premises and a conclusion Singer argues for relief. The first of the three premises is understood when Singer said “that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (Singer, 1972, pg. 231). The next of these three......

Words: 1052 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Peter Singer

...In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” he explores the possibilities of each and every American giving up about 2/3 of his/her income. However, rather than simply talking of his own solution as another theory, he tells the reader in so many words (literally) that he/she is wrong. A large chunk of the essay is basically a big middle finger to everyone reading it. It is almost as though Singer wanted to invoke anger out of the reader so that he/she would then go and donate money to charity, so as to say something along the lines of “You lookie here, Singer, I’m not who you say I am.” Some people might think that Singer is just out of his mind, but I think he was angering the reader by making harsh accusations on purpose. Singer opens his essay with a ridiculous story from a film about a fictional woman named Dora. In the story, Dora is a “retired schoolteacher who makes ends meet by sitting at the station writing letters for illiterate people.” First off, how could anyone make enough money to live comfortably like that? She ends up selling a homeless boy to what she is told to be a “wealthy family.” Her neighbor somehow knows that this is not the case, that the boy will be put to death and his organs sold. Second of all, how does the neighbor know this? This accusation is not explained. Dora then goes home with her brand new television, feels guilty, and takes the boy back. Why would Dora do this without further research? She has no proof other than......

Words: 1248 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

...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......

Words: 918 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Famine, Affluence, & Mortality

...“Famine, Affluence, & Mortality” – Peter Singer Shelly Fowler PHI208 – Ethics & Moral Reasoning Instructor Robert Vaughan May 13, 2013 “Famine, Affluence, & Mortality” – Peter Singer Singer spoke about how this South Asian territory of Bengal was suffering from starvation. He sheds light on the devastating state of the Bengali people who were then known as refugees. The pressure is put on the reader to acknowledge not only the people who around you who needs help, but to assist people who you may not ever come in contact with as well. If the reader had not ever heard of the Bengal Relief Fund, they definitely left with the mindset of making a change to help these people whom they may never see in their lives. There were a few counter arguments that Singer faced within the reading. One was how wealthy countries should change their point of view in helping cripple and famine third world countries. He wanted to create a sense of urgency and loyalty to these people by shedding light on their lack of food, shelter, and medical supplies. Rich countries should take some form of accountability in helping these people even if it means they have to cut back on some of their own fibulas spending habits. Taking care of our own neighbor and forgetting about people whom we cannot see nor touch should be a thought process of the past. Our societies focus on the luxuries in life while we should be focusing on saving a life. Another counter argument Singer spoke upon......

Words: 1047 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

...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......

Words: 723 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Arguments of Peter Singer

...Arguments of Peter Singer PHI200: Mind and Machine (ABT1315A) April 19, 2013 Singer’s goal in the article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” is to get people to think differently about famine relief, charity, and morality. These are key issues that people need to be more aware of and act on them. People who are financially stable and well off should take more of an active role by giving more. They should feel obligated in helping those in need. There are many people suffering severely, those who can help are doing nothing. People should be more willing to give help rather than being obtuse & self-centered. Singer argues it is wrong for a person to suffer from homelessness, hunger, or lack of medical attention. These needs are essential in life and without them can alimentally lead to one’s death. Another argument Singer gives is if a person is wealthy, they are more than capable to help others financially. They need to feel obligated to do so. Instead of a person spending money on extras and materialistic items for themselves, they should donate that money to the poor. The money should help with necessities for the poor and uplift them. On the same point he points out, one should not sacrifice if it would put them in harm’s way. Singer’s concept of marginal utility is that one should give as much as possible to the unfortunate; it should never create a hardship to the giver. This would be doing more harm than good. When a person contributes to the......

Words: 1027 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

...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......

Words: 933 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Famine Affluence and Morality

...Famine Affluence and Morality Tammy Blankenship PHI Ethics and Moral Reasoning Christopher Ruth September 1, 2013 When reading the paper by Peter Singer Famine, Affluence and Morality, you are pulled in with the first sentence “People are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter and medical care.” You are instantly searching your brain on how to fix the problem in East Berlin. As you read further down the page he tells you that it is the” decision and actions of humans beings that can prevent this kind of suffering” The goal of Singer’s Paper is to bring awareness to the hungry in other countries. He also wants to make you aware of what other nations donate to the dying in East Bengal. However, his main point is that the decisions and actions of other countries and humans that are willing to help can prevent this tragedy in East Bengal. Singer’s main argument in the paper is that humans’ suffering from starvation is bad and we could improve the world if we could improve these issues. Singer explains several counter arguments in his essay. The first one is, or moral conceptual scheme the way people in relatively affluent countries react to situation like the one in Bengal. With this first moral conceptual, he is stating that life in our society is being taken for granted and our moral compass needs to be altered. The second moral conceptual is that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care is bad. With this argument is using our moral......

Words: 855 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

...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......

Words: 1245 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

...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

Premium Essay

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

...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......

Words: 1235 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

“Famine, Affluence, and Morality

...“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......

Words: 592 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Singer

...Filosofía Mirada crítica a la visión de la dignidad humana de Singer En este curso se ha discutido, principalmente, sobre la dignidad de los seres vivos, de la cual se desprende el derecho o no a la vida de estos mismos, específicamente de los seres humanos. Ante la posición de Singer, la cual defiende la idea de que no todos los seres humanos tienen derecho a la vida, ya que no todos éstos son considerados personas, y solo aquellos que ejercen la facultad de conciencia y pueden defender sus intereses, lo son y por ende tienen derecho a la vida, no así, aquellos que queden fuera de esta descripción. Mi postura es de discrepar con esto y pienso que todos los seres tienen derecho a la vida. Como primer argumento debo decir que no me parece sensato, sino más bien arbitrario reducir el valor o la dignidad de un ser a su capacidad de conciencia, y menos sensato aún, a partir de esto, deducir que un ser de ésta naturaleza no tenga derecho a la vida. Una cosa es definir lo que es una persona, otra es derivar necesariamente que los que no entran en esta definición no tienen derecho a vivir ya que esto último no es lógico. Por lo demás, ser persona (entendida como ser racional, consciente, como lo entiende Singer) está presente potencialmente también en un embrión o niño pequeño, si bien aun no ejerce ciertas facultades, las ejercerá en un futuro y será igual de capacitado o quizás más aun que cualquier otra persona existente. También así, estas facultades están presentes en......

Words: 1165 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Peter Singers Ethics

...Media resource Eidos84. (2010, Nov. 27). Peter Singer’s ethics [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVViICWs4dM Argument Outline: (CONTEXT): Instead of spending money on things to make life a tad bit easier for others, why do we feel that it is necessary to go above and beyond to spend money on things that are a necessity? Issue: Why do we go overboard on spending money on ourselves instead of giving and helping others with the extra funds we do have and not seeing anything morally wrong with that? Conclusion: We must practice thinking ethically and learn to take in or account the interest of others. Premises: Singer uses an example that someone may decide to buy a pair of shoes that costs over two thousand dollars. If they had to decide between rescuing a drowning child in a shallow pond, they would save the child and they won’t care about ruining a pair of two thousand. However morally, for the price of those shoes, a person could have helped several children in a poor country who may need medical attention to recover from simple illnesses. I believe that this is basis for a good argument because he is absolutely right when he refers to some of our terrible spending habits. Every year I donate to St. Jude Children’s Hospital because I know that it truly helps children in need. Bran new clothes every month for me could be the cost of a child’s medication in another county. Singer goes on to say, “we make our lives most meaningful when we......

Words: 274 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Famine, Affluence and Morality Critique

...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