Dreams versus Reality In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” he claims that people should give up until the point that by giving further they would be suffering just as much if not more than those we are attempting to help. However, I will show how he fails to address the risks and moral dilemmas that the resulting transportation of those goods and services would cause. Peter Singer asserts that poverty, famine, disease are bad, and claims that we should give until that point that by giving further we would be suffering just as much if not more than those we would be attempting to help. In his article Peter makes defines this level of giving:
“By "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance" I mean without causing …show more content…
This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would be presumably a bad thing.”(p.231) In this thought experiment provided by Peter Singer he illustrates his two arguments by presenting a situation where we sacrifice something of little moral importance for something of greater moral importance. He uses his clothes to as an example of something that has no moral significance or value, and as an item that should not factor into his mind when deciding to save the child. While ruining his clothes maybe a bad thing, it is an even worse thing to allow the child to die. However, his thought doesn’t address the incompatibility of his version of giving with the real world. Of the many objections that can be presented the most clearly present are those surrounding the increase of transportation of charitable goods and the costs of it. For example, the moral risks associated with sending someone to a region in need of aid when doing so would put their lives at risk. How should society attempt to justify the risk of sending a ship through dangerous waters in areas with high levels of piracy? Another dilemma would be the obvious increase in C02 emissions produced by the increase of traffic throughout the world in order to get the goods and services to the areas in need. These issues present several significant moral objections …show more content…
Most notable of which is the damage it would do to the global economy. Singer wants people to stop buying new clothes and instead give that money to charities so that people can eat, sleep, and be happy. In a utopian society this may be possible, however, the world economy is based off of capitalism or to be more exact the production and consumption of goods. In countries such as the US the entire economy is dependent upon individuals buying new clothes, video games, cars, and furniture. If people stopped doing this it would cause an economic collapse with unforeseeable consequences. Furthermore, his argument assumes the honesty of the organizations and governments receiving this aid. What happens when people governments take their aid and sell it rather than use it to help their people? So long as the world economy is based upon Capitalism and consumerism Singer’s utopian societywill never exist. Peter Singer could suggest that there is an acceptable area of risk for transportation of goods and services to regions in need. C02 emissions can be budgeted so that fewer people are traveling for vacation, and more are traveling to aid foreign countries. The argument can be made that people delivering goods and services to regions in need assume and accept the risks involved with such a job. These counter arguments would indeed punch whole in the presented objection. However, when the moral dilemmas