Everyone should have the right to live a stable life with all the necessary essentials, which can include food, shelter, and medical care. Unfortunately, not every individual in our flawed world has feasible access to either one or all of these life essential elements. In Peter Singer’s essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Singer emphasizes the importance of giving back to those who are less fortunate than the rest of us. Singer in particular claims that those who are affluent individuals in society should feel morally obligated to donate towards imperative humanitarian causes. In Peter Singer’s piece, he goes on explaining various significant reasons as to why affluent people should be morally obligated to donate essential resources
…show more content…
Personally, I take the stance to agree with Peter Singer in this case. I think that as a fairly wealthy society, we are morally ought to help and aid those in need of any fundamental resources in order to properly endure. People who make a good income should feel the need to contribute their efforts to charity. If everyone in the nation donated, the total amount would be very much sufficient to what is needed. In Singer’s essay, he mentioned that if everyone donated a certain amount, there will in fact be a sufficient amount that would absolutely be put good use . Not only that, but there would not be any obligations to donate as the relief will have been already brought to those who actually needed …show more content…
In defense, The “suffering” of not purchasing materialistic items that are not necessary and are rather a luxury is nothing in comparison to saving lives for affluent individuals. For example, let’s say a working citizen is working hard to purchase a new car. However, they have to decide whether they should purchase the car or donate some of his efforts to charity. It would be morally correct for him to prioritize and donate his efforts first and postpone the purchase of his new car as owning a car is not a necessary element to survival. In conclusion, if one is affluent and spending on items that are not considered as a “need”, but rather considered as a “want”, such as leisure instead of taking action to contribute relief to world pain, then it would be wrong for them to do so. Would it not be morally correct to be considerate of those innocent lives you can potentially save? Every individual in the world knows there’s suffrage all over. In addition, as I Singer added, if everyone in an affluent society contributes, the amount of donations would be sufficient. In order for this to be possible, everyone would donate a necessary, reasonable amount. If not, anything would also help. If everyone ultimately does their part in society and does what is morally appropriate, no one individual would have to further suffer in similar unfortunate situations, as well as the world as a whole would also be at ease from pain,
Personally, I take the stance to agree with Peter Singer in this case. I think that as a fairly wealthy society, we are morally ought to help and aid those in need of any fundamental resources in order to properly endure. People who make a good income should feel the need to contribute their efforts to charity. If everyone in the nation donated, the total amount would be very much sufficient to what is needed. In Singer’s essay, he mentioned that if everyone donated a certain amount, there will in fact be a sufficient amount that would absolutely be put good use . Not only that, but there would not be any obligations to donate as the relief will have been already brought to those who actually needed …show more content…
In defense, The “suffering” of not purchasing materialistic items that are not necessary and are rather a luxury is nothing in comparison to saving lives for affluent individuals. For example, let’s say a working citizen is working hard to purchase a new car. However, they have to decide whether they should purchase the car or donate some of his efforts to charity. It would be morally correct for him to prioritize and donate his efforts first and postpone the purchase of his new car as owning a car is not a necessary element to survival. In conclusion, if one is affluent and spending on items that are not considered as a “need”, but rather considered as a “want”, such as leisure instead of taking action to contribute relief to world pain, then it would be wrong for them to do so. Would it not be morally correct to be considerate of those innocent lives you can potentially save? Every individual in the world knows there’s suffrage all over. In addition, as I Singer added, if everyone in an affluent society contributes, the amount of donations would be sufficient. In order for this to be possible, everyone would donate a necessary, reasonable amount. If not, anything would also help. If everyone ultimately does their part in society and does what is morally appropriate, no one individual would have to further suffer in similar unfortunate situations, as well as the world as a whole would also be at ease from pain,