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 premises argument in his article is “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer, 1972, page 231). By this he feels that those people who are rich in their finances are morally obligated to help reduce the famine or even try to eliminate it all together, if this could be easily done without causing an excessive sacrifice of that individual. However what is considered an excessive sacrifice to one person may not be to another. By the use of this principal requires everyone to prevent things that are bad but to also avoid promoting what is of good. Mr. Singer illustrated this principal when he illustrated the story of the child drowning and if one should risk getting their clothes dirty in order to save the child even though several people were there and doing nothing. Doing nothing and causing the child do down would end up being a bad thing. Singer’s final premise states if we are wealthy we then have the ability to help with relief, and if every single wealthy person fulfilled their moral obligates to help with the famine relieve, or even stop starvation. Singer feels that if a person can give up money without giving up the necessities of life (Singer, 1972). With these three premises comes the conclusion of Singer’s famine relief. This conclusion of famine relief says that the rich are morally required to help relieve famine, this would be obtained but giving all they can without deviating from their necessities of life. If one would accept this conclusion then one must take another look and reevaluate how he or she thinks about how issues of things like charity, famine relief and moral obligations are handled. If Mr. Singer’s conclusion was absolute truth, then giving money to famine relief organizations would no longer be voluntary but it would be morally mandated. How can someone mandate anyone to do anything then call it morally? In today’s society anyone has the opportunity to give through charitable organizations with making this a decision they make not forced to do. However if one would decide to reject this conclusion then a satisfactory argument must be provided as a reason for denying the second of these three arguments. In order to do this one but attempt to grow a stronger understanding of the thought that Singer had behind the premise and what implications would go along with it. When Singer speaks of the marginal utility what he is talking is if one is affluent, then they must give to help others by giving and then giving more. He believes that one should give enough to cause pain to oneself, by reducing oneself to no more than that of a Bengali refugee (Singer, 1972). When reading “Famine, Affluence and Morality, Singer emphasizes greatly on the importance of helping others. Whether it is someone who is close or within our reach to those who live in places afar. He feels that this is or moral obligation and feels that we only need the bare necessities in order to live and we should send other people the extra. a. Compare how the ideas of duty and charity change in Singer’s proposed world?

In Singer’s paper, he feels that one is morally bond to help others and not to harm them. He wrote that it is our duty to morally give money. Again one should live on a much lower income and send the rest to countries who fight famine. But with “charity” something you do when you have because it is ones “duty” Even if one gave for a small amount of time he would be going above the call of duty. By giving as means to a charity one is not duty bound.

Singer comments that the upshot of his argument is that the traditional, conventional way of drawing the line between moral duty and charity cannot be drawn, or anyway cannot be drawn in anything like the way we usually understand it. On the usual conception, one is morally bound not to harm others in certain ways, that is a strict duty. But helping others is morally optional. IF you do help others, even just a bit, you are going above and beyond the call of duty, and are to be commended for being charitable—doing good you were not duty-bound to do. On Singer’s
Strong Principle, this way of characterizing the relationship between duty and charity is turned upside down.

References

Singer, P (1972),Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Philosophy & Public Affairs , Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 229-243, Published by: Wiley Retrieved from: Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265052