Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

Moral Comparability In Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer, he argues that we are morally obligated to donate as much money to charity as we can to help limit poverty in the world. Singer explains that there are many people in the world suffering from poverty, and living very poor-quality lives as a result of poverty. He argues that poverty is morally wrong because of the suffering it promotes. Singer believes it is the moral obligation of humans to donate as much as they can to help limit the suffering of the poor in the world, without sacrificing anything moral comparability. In this paper, I will argue that Singer uses vague language to describe what the line is for moral comparability. Singer does not provide criteria to decide on what is morally comparable. Also, I will deny Singer’s conclusion that we are obligated to donate as much as we can to help end poverty. I will argue that donating to charity is supererogatory, which means that donating to charity is not obligated, but instead a positive thing to do. I will also deny his second premise which states that it is our moral responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to other people.
In this section I will outline Singer’s argument. Singer’s first premise states that any suffering stemming from poverty is morally wrong. This suffering can include suffering from not enough food, poor living conditions, or a lack of proper medical care. His second premise describes that it is our moral