Peter Singer Famine Affluence And Mortality Analysis

In “Famine, Affluence and Mortality”, Peter Singer sets out to critique how those in affluent countries have a moral obligation to give and do far more to help those who are suffering than they actually do. According to singer, human beings and governments have the capability to prevent suffering in other parts of the world and have not done enough to help. He uses the situation in Bengal as an example because it has arguably the most extreme and largest-growing problem in the world. Individuals and governments were aware of the problem, which is why he chose this as the primary example to begin his critique. The situation in Bengal represents the thousands of other emergencies, disasters, problem etc. that go on throughout the world. The way …show more content…
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 …show more content…
As human beings, we would likely read these three claims and agree completely that these are necessary. We also look at the analogy of saving the drowning child and cannot deny our moral agreement with Singer. But it is throughout the rest of his argument that his advice does not seem like something that should be followed in the way he has directed. If we were to just look at these three claims and use these as our guidance of how to proceed and alter ourselves, it would be a fair approach. It is highly unlikely that if human beings altered their moral conceptual scheme and followed his guidance that suffering would go away. The long-term needs of those who are suffering are not being addressed, and that is where the argument is lacking substance. It is fair to assume that Singer’s approach would contribute to helping the short-term suffering, but there needs to be more evidence to end this suffering in order for this advice to be followed. As human beings, we have moral obligations, and those can always be constantly changing and developing. However, there is not one approach that is plausible or reasonable for everyone to follow. Singer’s intention is good, but the solution and approach does not seem to be enough for human beings in these affluent countries to change their lives in the way in which he