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 …show more content…
Basically, If I were financially well off or stable, morally I should donate every dollar to poverty and famine relief. This consequently means that I would be reducing my prosperous life to help others without what I attain, meaning I would be setting myself back to help others forward. Someone may object to this position by looking at the facts Singer gives and the multitude of people in destitute areas who need help, and think that just their donations wouldn’t really make a difference. And why should they be accountable morally if not every single person with money donated what they have as well. If they were to spend money on themselves versus donating that money to those in need, it may help a few people in great ways, however It isn’t stopping the other millions of people going through the same issues. While at the same time this may not allow the same pleasure that spending the money on themselves may have brought. The only way people can be helped widespread is if everyone who could from every country pitched in, which is not likely. I believe that Singer proposed his argument well, however his conclusion will be very hard to attain for complete relief to those without food, shelter, or medical