Running Head: Peter Singer’s Beliefs 1
In reading his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer gives us a seemingly devastating critiques of our ordinary ways of thinking in regards to famine relief, charity, and morality in general. In the spite of this there are some very few people that have accepted, or at any rate acted on, the conclusions he has reached. In aspect of these facts one could possible say of Singer’s arguments, as Hume said of Berkeley’s arguments for immaterialism, that “ they admit of no answer and produce no conviction.” In which I believe that Singer’s considerations show that people should do what would be considerably more than most people would actually do, people do not establish Singer’s conclusions in their full strength or generality. So Singer’s arguments may admit to partial answers, and possibly once properly qualified may produce some conviction. In the article Singer argues that the people who live in affluent countries must radically change their way of life as well as their conception of morality, so that they will become committed to helping those that are in need. Singer begins by asking us to consider cases of famine, like that in Bengal in 1971, Singer argues that the majority of people have a moral obligation to donate all we can possibly to the famine relief, and seeing that the people were suffering tremendously and either the government nor the individuals was doing anything near what was required to help. In saying this, this applies to all people regardless of any other person’s inaction. The “all we can”, is reasonably interpreted as the amount that one can give without
- 1 -
[no notes on this page]
Running Head: Peter Singer’s Beliefs 2 causing any harm to his/her dependents or that of one’s self, or without causing something comparably immoral to the one he/she will be trying to prevent. Singer’s main focus and argument is his principle: “if it is in our/your will power to prevent something very bad from starting, then without hereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought to morally do it” (Singer 790).
By supporting his claims Singer provides an example of a scenario where a person witnesses a child apparently drowning. Majority of people would agree that the person has the duty to save the apparent drowning child. Singer then claims that this particular duty can exist because we as people believe that the apparent drowning of any child is a bad thing. Knowing that a person has that duty as to save the child, because a drowning child is a terrible thing, and it is reasonable to assume that moral duty can extend to preventing any significantly horrible thing from happening, with the exceptions mentioned earlier being the only limitations to this duty.
Being this duty exists independent of how people can actually choose to act. The moral requirements are different than that of legal requirements, and how a person chooses to do is not necessarily what he/she ought to do.
Singer’s counters would seem to relate to the fact that Bengalis can be really far away from people in our developed world. That many other’s also need our help, so why give to this particular “charity” and we should have to radically revise “our moral scheme” to justify giving aid until the principle of marginal utility “kicked in” to replace Singer’s first principle towards obligation/duty to help those famine suffers. Singer seems to appeal to our sense of equality. That on the basis that we should accept equality and impartiality as a part of our morality, being we could not discriminate against anyone on the basis of proximity. Just how can we say that someone’s distances make their suffering any less worthy or our moral duties? Knowing that we
- 2 -
[no notes on this page]
Running Head: Peter Singer’s Beliefs 3 cannot deem the needs of a man in Bengal less morally significant on the basis of his distance, “if we accept any principles of impartially, universalizability, equality, or whatever” (Singer 790).
Singer seems to further address the possible counter argument, that if we are unable to properly asses the needs of the people in Bengals, then our money can do more good per capital for the less fortunate of our communities. He also argues that globalization has invalidated this excuse. The
Aid organizations are considered to be very efficient, and that the needs of the people of Bengal are highly publicized by news organizations across the world and are understood by the general public.
By addressing these counter-arguments, Singer has concluded that there is “no possible justification for discriminating on geographical grounds” (Singer 791).
Singer defines marginal utility as meaning no more, and no less than “I ought to “, this usage is in accordance with the definition of “ought” serious suffering for on self and one’s dependents-perhaps even beyond this point to the point of marginal utility, (Singer 1972). The money that people of wealthier nations spend on luxuries should instead be able to donate to charity, because the poor and the needy need it to survive and to make a living. By donating one’s own money to help the needy isn’t just good, it’s considered obligatory. The distinction between what is just good and that which is obligatory might still exist, but it does not mean it applies to cases where affluent people can help the poor and the needy.
Singer argues that the” difference between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not in the same place we normally draw it, that giving money to the Bengal Relief Fund is regarded as an act of charity to our society. Which are bodies that collect money are known as
“charities”. Organizations will thank you as being generous”, (Singer 1972). Charity can become a necessary duty, rather than that of a “free choice” of charitable activity, according to Singer’s argument. - 3 -
[no notes on this page]
Running Head: Peter Singer’s Beliefs 4
After the reviewing of this Article I believe Singer was trying as well as concerned for the wellbeing of others, when it comes to food, shelter, and medical care, and the lack of these things that seems to be essential to all of our daily activities. He also argued that “moral attitudes are shaped by the needs of society”. He believes that us as people should be able to devote a great deal of our resources to famine and similar causes. In probability far more than majority of people in affluent nations, including myself, likely contributes or have intensions of contributing to famine. He argues that if people can live a luxury life that they should be able to contribute to those of famine, even if it is just a little something. There should be a moral in regards to famine, affluence, morality. There is a mass starvation in the majority parts of the world and we should be obligated to help however. Singer’s argues that there are ways of helping people in these famine countries in a global village if it is by communication or by air. If contributing to the famine, affluence, and morality it would be consider a generous act on our behalf. To help prevent serous things from happening like no food, medical aid, assistance Singer argued that people can contribute to the Bengal Relief Fund if only putting at least a few dollars towards to help the needy.
Not saying that you have to give more or trying to be in competition with someone else with the amount he/she gives. It is the thought and act of giving to those in need. If everyone depending on their circumstances would contribute something it would help with food, shelter, and medical needs for the refugees.
Works Cited
- 4 -
[no notes on this page]
Running Head: Peter Singer’s Beliefs 5
Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Edited by Tom L.
Beauchamp. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Ethical Theory: An Anthology, edited by
Russ Shafer-Landau. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007
Singer, Peter. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Retrieved from: Ashford library. http;//www.library.ashford.edu/index.aspx. - 5 -
[no notes on this page]