Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

Superior Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer ultimately believes that we are morally obligated to help those who need help and are suffering. He provides various arguments that support his belief that everyone should help the dying people of East Bengal. He starts off by assuming one thing, “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.” This assumption serves as a foundation for his many claims since it provides a definition for what he considers bad. Furthermore, his first claim is that we are morally obligated to stop bad things from happening only if we do not have to sacrifice something of equal value.…

    • 2138 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The first problem that I find in Arthurs argument is how he uses the moral evil rule. Singer implied this rule to simply say if you can help someone in need without inconveniencing yourself then you should do so. Arthur goes on to give…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Where Singer's guideline dictates, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance we ought to do it” (147). Narveson withstands that there is a division between principles in the abstract to be weighted against potential outcomes and policies that are “pursued in the real world, (where) facts cannot be ignored” (145). Further, what we are committed to do (justice) and what might be ethically virtuous for us to do, charity. Resisting arguments that we should compel others into action, Narveson states that while it is virtuous to aid to others, it is never it is never morally tolerable to force someone to be charitable. Charity depends on empathy and is an activity that flows from the heart.…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer sets the stage for his argument by his first premise, which he believes most would agree too, that human suffering and death due to a deficiency of food, shelter, and medical aide are bad (231). Secondly, he states that if it is in one’s power to prevent something bad from happening, without having to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance, we morally ought to do it. He implies that…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What Makes the World Go Round Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, explains in the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” that all prosperous people should give all money that is not needed for basic necessities to places that are in need of food and medicine. As an American, I have knowledge this argument would shake up America as a whole. This could create a world of giving up the Capitalistic ways of America and the economic food chain. On the other hand, it could create a world of kindness and less violence. Can you imagine giving up your freedom to help others?…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In his article, “The Life You Can Save,” Singer displays how many Americans have the means to send money to help those suffering from poverty and terrible living conditions, concluding that if a person does not donate thousands of dollars to aid agencies, they are doing something morally wrong. However, in objection to Singer’s arguments, John Arthur points out that if a person must do what creates the most good, then they are therefore morally wrong when not donating organs to other people, an illogical concept that contradicts Singer’s greater moral evil rule. While Singer may be able to rebut the objection points, he cannot deny the foundation of the objection, therefore rendering his argument invalid. One of the arguments that leads Singer…

    • 1359 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In life we are faced with a series of “big questions”. These questions answer whether we are decently moral people. The ‘big question” we are going to tackle is ‘are we under an obligation to save lives?’ If so, what is required of us to be a morally decent person? In “The Gift” by Parker we learn that Zell Kravinsky would take a utilitarian approach to this question.…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    He does this first by presenting a drowning child situation that attempts to convince people to agree with his main moral principle that people are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening that would not result in a loss of something of equal moral value. Singer claims that should a person agree that one is morally obligated to save a drowning child with the cost of dirtying their clothes, they therefore must also agree to donate their surplus of money until they themselves are in poverty, because doing so would not risk anything of equal moral value. Contrary to Singer’s argument, one might still be able to agree with his main moral principle without donating all of their money to help prevent poverty. It follows logically this main moral principle is equally applicable to other issues such as the environment, as the degradation of the environment is another bad thing that is preventable to the same extent as poverty. With critical analyzes of Singer’s argument, it may be concluded that one may consistently agree with the initial premises of Singer’s argument without agreement to his conclusion of morally obligatory…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer Charity

    • 890 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Is Charity the Answer to World Poverty? In “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Peter Singer discusses multiple scenarios where individuals are put in situations where they must decide between their needs and others. He believes individuals can save the life of another by sacrificing some wealth or material possessions. This simplistic solution to a problem that has present for decades fails to address certain issues. One such problem with his solution is the variability between the circumstances people undergo and changeable nature of life.…

    • 890 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Peter Singer Argument

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The argument to which Singer lays his claim would be pragmatic in an idealistic world. However, this world in which human existence thrives is far from being in a state that is unimpeded by flaws. Singer argues that those who earn enough to spend their extra money on luxuries should instead donate those funds to overseas organizations to help combat poverty. This proposal is unrealistic due to reasons that you can’t expect beings who carry faultful qualities to amend their ways without delay. Many individuals who have become accustomed to living an affluent lifestyle, will feel reluctant towards Singer’s proposal due to the fear that it will jeopardize their comfortable way of life.…

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer believes that charity should be considered a duty and become a moral obligation for human beings. He believes that the way society looks at charity is wrong because it should not be something that is done no matter what. The way society approaches charity is praising people who do so and doing nothing to those who do not. Singer believes that human beings should be giving to charities it is the duty of human beings to acknowledge their moral obligation to not physically harm another person. Further, he believes that acknowledging their duty to donate money should be in the same…

    • 1335 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Singer does not take into account the proximity of how close people in need are He also does not take into account one’s own self interest or comfort. People do not have to be in our society for us to be obligated to help them. The starving child in Africa is just as much as our responsibility as the inner city kids in Richmond. He states that we ought to give as much as possible even to the point of it causing us and our dependents some suffering.…

    • 404 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If Singer was truly attempting to prevent the greatest amount of human suffering for the value of the contributions that he gives to charity, it could potentially be possible that he did not take into account the suffering that he was experiencing in his life due to the heavy financial burden of making large contributions of money. Not having the capability to support yourself but helping others with large contributions can cause suffering for yourself so, the principle to prevent suffering can be used to argue against his other argument on giving money away to prevent suffering. In order to prevent suffering due to the financial burden, the best decision would be to reduce the amount of money being contributed. There have been many cases that different charities have misused money and other contributions. There also have been cases where the money have been used inefficiently.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Hardin argues about “a world that must solve real and pressing problems of overpopulation, hunger and moral duty.” Hardin sets the stage by first giving his analysis on the structure of the world today by describing the earth as a lifeboat rather than a spaceship. He then dives into how population control, the tragedy of the commons and immigration are some of the main reasons for the problems we have today. Hardin argues that simply helping people and giving charitably will not solve these problems. Peter Singer, in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” seemingly goes against Hardin by saying that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby…

    • 994 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Peter Singer Analysis

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Bogging down the argument in the selfish aspects of the individual, who at most if they do work to combat global suffering is minimally affected detracts from the severity of the problem that is being addressed. What is important is the suffering the absolute poor face, and if the justification to help them is not helping them is murder, then what justification would exist? Singer’s justification still is not enough to truly compel most people into acting, and if the possibility of being a murderer is not enough then no other justification would be either, and any other would be even less compelling. Hence, it is better to assume Peter’s assertion is the case and convince more people to act. Or on a micro-level, is it not better to take Singer at face value and save lives, or at worst Singer be wrong and have still saved…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays