Summary Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

Anyone can agree that lack of food, shelter and medicine could be drastically devastating to an individual or even a community as a whole. In Peter Singer article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” he argues that people who live in affluent countries like the United States have a moral obligation to give back to those who are in need. By giving back to famine relief, disaster relief etc. we must radically change our way of thinking in order to help others. While Singer’s arguments prove that people should do these tasks for the greater good of humanity, he does not form a pragmatic conclusion ensuring that your charitable donations are being broken down within the company correctly. With this being said, the donated money is not being used to …show more content…
People are choosing to not donate to the Bengal Relief Fund because they do not feel they are obligated to do so, since there are many other companies who are trying to convince people to give to their charity, so what makes the Bengal Fund so special? Singer states that if people knew specific numbers of how much to donate it would show the realistic of where the funds are going and what areas they are specifically helping. People are choosing to not take part in this fund even though they are asking for so little. If everyone believed each other and came together to help out, then this Fund would actually be able to take care of the lack of food, shelter, and medical care. Singer constantly states the negatives when it comes to individuals and donating and never states the positives or shows what people have …show more content…
Singer states that geography does not matter and that all people should be able to help around the world no matter the distance. What he does not realize is that people have obligations to their immediate family and communities, which needs to come before helping an individual you are not connected to. I do not believe that my donation to certain charities is comparable to Singer’s view point would be the same as his analogy of the “drowning child”. These don’t compare because when you are donating money to the many people far away, you aren’t able to witness the improvements first hand. As an individual, you expect your money to make a difference to the people in need but in reality, you are repeatedly hearing the commercials about how a poor country continues to live. This does not make you morally guilty because there are many other people who have a healthy life-style that are giving back even when others can’t. Singer believes that all good deeds are considered moral obligations but in other stand-points, good deeds are not mandatory to be a part