In this paper I will be objecting to Singer’s second premise, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, where he argues a moral way to live by is marginal utility.
The first premise Singer gives us is “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” (Singer 231) Basically from this he’s saying that everyone should give as much as they possibly can without making their own families suffer, and give it to aid organizations that help famine and could possibly prevent all deaths due to starvation. Singer uses the example that people in affluent countries who have extra money to go spend on clothes, to make them look stylish, should instead …show more content…
Of course the person without thinking jumps in a saves the child. He concludes with “it makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never …show more content…
Living by Singer’s standard, that everyone should live to the level of marginal utility, “which by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” (Singer 241) and that people should be “working full time to relieve great suffering.” (Singer 238) This would mean that everyone is plainly equal, no longer would there be entitlement. Therefore there would be no incentive to be productive, parallel, being unproductive has no punishment, because there will always be someone morally obliged to provide for them. Even if they were to work there would be no enjoyment, being difficult to have hobbies or interest, because they would have to relinquish that gym membership because using that money instead to donate to starving children in Africa is far more moral then fulfilling their own enjoyment. Thus leading to the reduction of consumerism. People won’t have any extra money to purchase anything besides the basic materials to survive. Conceivably causing a more detriment to the economy. Sure Singer stated that “there must be a limit to the extent to which we should deliberately slow down our economy,” (Singer 241) but who’s to say that even the
The first premise Singer gives us is “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” (Singer 231) Basically from this he’s saying that everyone should give as much as they possibly can without making their own families suffer, and give it to aid organizations that help famine and could possibly prevent all deaths due to starvation. Singer uses the example that people in affluent countries who have extra money to go spend on clothes, to make them look stylish, should instead …show more content…
Of course the person without thinking jumps in a saves the child. He concludes with “it makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never …show more content…
Living by Singer’s standard, that everyone should live to the level of marginal utility, “which by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” (Singer 241) and that people should be “working full time to relieve great suffering.” (Singer 238) This would mean that everyone is plainly equal, no longer would there be entitlement. Therefore there would be no incentive to be productive, parallel, being unproductive has no punishment, because there will always be someone morally obliged to provide for them. Even if they were to work there would be no enjoyment, being difficult to have hobbies or interest, because they would have to relinquish that gym membership because using that money instead to donate to starving children in Africa is far more moral then fulfilling their own enjoyment. Thus leading to the reduction of consumerism. People won’t have any extra money to purchase anything besides the basic materials to survive. Conceivably causing a more detriment to the economy. Sure Singer stated that “there must be a limit to the extent to which we should deliberately slow down our economy,” (Singer 241) but who’s to say that even the