Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer Essay

1460 Words Nov 17th, 2016 6 Pages
In his article ”Famine, Affluence and Morality” Peter Singer (2014) discusses to what extent people are morally obligated to help people who suffer from poverty, malnutrition, the consequences of civil wars and other similar conditions of deprivation. In this text I am going to tell why I agree with Singer’s principle but also specify what could be the best interpretation of his principle and propose a less demanding way for applying it more efficiently.

Singer claims that people have not done enough to help the less fortunate. He begins his argumentation with an undisputable assumption that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (2014;555). In the next sentence Singer states his idea of a moral principle: “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 follows this principle in his example where a drowning child should be saved because the life of the child is more important than the saver’s clothes’ cleanliness.

Singer thinks the traditional moral values are upset. Giving to a charity is seen to be a generous act, but not a necessary one, so you don’t get blamed if you don’t give any of your money to charities and use it to buy yourself new clothes. Buying new clothes is often an act of pure self-gratification, and if you could save someone’s life with that money, Singer thinks it would be the morally right to save…

Related Documents