Second Argument Evaluation, Singer: Morality’s Ambivalent Behavior in the Face of Affluence In the piece “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer puts forth his argument that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it,” (Cahn, 505). In his argument Singer claims that men have the moral responsibility to prevent suffering when it does not negatively impact “himself or his dependents” (Cahn, 508), and that the refusal of this prescribed human duty makes him morally incompetent. The extended example that Singer uses as the basis of his argument is the mass famine that struck East Bengal in the 1970s, an issue that received much media coverage, yet—despite its fame—received little help from affluent countries and their constituents. In using this example, Singer exemplifies the ignorance of the prosperous bodies as they chose to allow tragedy to strike
…show more content…
Unless an item is filling an essential need required for the prosperity of survival, it can be potentially used to help others. ii. Those who withhold such items violate the right to be alleviated of suffering for others.
c. To not sacrifice moral competency, the actions taken to prevent said harm must not: cause “worse” events to occur, violate moral good, or be prevented through means that are morally wrong.
3. It is duty, rather than charity, that requires us to help those suffering.
a. People are not only aware of suffering, but are available to relieve it.
b. People are individually responsible for helping those suffering.
c. Worse events occur if we do not hold ourselves responsible to the suffering of others.
d. If we are aware of the suffering (which, assuming, we are), then we are morally obligated to alleviate it, and to not do so is morally wrong.
4. Therefore, if we believe ourselves morally competent, we will do what we ought, morally, to do, and alleviate the suffering of
Unless an item is filling an essential need required for the prosperity of survival, it can be potentially used to help others. ii. Those who withhold such items violate the right to be alleviated of suffering for others.
c. To not sacrifice moral competency, the actions taken to prevent said harm must not: cause “worse” events to occur, violate moral good, or be prevented through means that are morally wrong.
3. It is duty, rather than charity, that requires us to help those suffering.
a. People are not only aware of suffering, but are available to relieve it.
b. People are individually responsible for helping those suffering.
c. Worse events occur if we do not hold ourselves responsible to the suffering of others.
d. If we are aware of the suffering (which, assuming, we are), then we are morally obligated to alleviate it, and to not do so is morally wrong.
4. Therefore, if we believe ourselves morally competent, we will do what we ought, morally, to do, and alleviate the suffering of