In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer begins by stating, people in East Bengal are dying from a shortage of food, shelter, and medical assistance. Singer says, this is a completely avoidable problem if richer nations took more notice and provided appropriate aid. He then continues to say that Britain, who provided the largest amount of financial aid to the people in East Bengal, provided more than thirty times that amount on a means of transportation. Singer then equates this and says that due to their actions, Britain values this project thirty times more than it values the people in East Bengal. Singer also uses this example to set up the rest of his argument by stating a general belief that, suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter and medical assistance is a bad thing. …show more content…
He then gives an example about a child drowning in a pond and how you should pull the child out even though your cloths might get wet and muddy. Singer says that your cloths getting ruined is insignificant to the child drowning because the death of the child would be a very bad thing. Singer then uses this example to pacify the argument that proximity plays a role in our moral obligation to help. Singer says that due to the world now being connected so closely by communication and transportation, we can help someone far away just as well as someone from our own neighborhood. He labels this current situation a “global village” where there is no justification for not acting when people are in trouble just because of the distance they are from