Famine, Affluence and Morality
In his article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” Peter Singer believes that people should make adjustments with their life styles and give those unnecessary spending money for the people who really needs it. According to him it is an ethical evaluation of the consequences of people’s actions. If people have all the things they need to live there is no point in buying additional things again and again just because to show the world that you are capable of buying things and you are rich. According to him it is wasting money which has no value. But that money can become an important value to those people who need it. It can be a lifesaving aid, a piece of bread or some clean water for a starving child is more important than a luxury item.
He shows that the poor and the needy needs to survive and of course they can survive if people who are capable can donate to charity & not for their own luxury life style. Lots of people live …show more content…
Because every person doesn’t have luxury life style as he says. People who own luxury life styles can devote their energy and money and it is not an uneasy thing for them. But people who live a normal but not a luxury life style might think whether to pursue their interest and money and etc. when we talk about his argument, he says, people can wear old clothes and give that money to the famine relief, but I think every person like to wear something new and to look well dressed. Some people do give their old clothes to those who don’t have. I think that is one of the best way to do donations. Rather than throwing away something that you don’t need or something you feel uncomfortable wearing or using you can give it to a poor person. That person will be more than happy from that. Also you will be self-satisfied and you will feel proud of yourself. That’s their personal choice, that how to contribute their own ways. It depends on their earnings
In his article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” Peter Singer believes that people should make adjustments with their life styles and give those unnecessary spending money for the people who really needs it. According to him it is an ethical evaluation of the consequences of people’s actions. If people have all the things they need to live there is no point in buying additional things again and again just because to show the world that you are capable of buying things and you are rich. According to him it is wasting money which has no value. But that money can become an important value to those people who need it. It can be a lifesaving aid, a piece of bread or some clean water for a starving child is more important than a luxury item.
He shows that the poor and the needy needs to survive and of course they can survive if people who are capable can donate to charity & not for their own luxury life style. Lots of people live …show more content…
Because every person doesn’t have luxury life style as he says. People who own luxury life styles can devote their energy and money and it is not an uneasy thing for them. But people who live a normal but not a luxury life style might think whether to pursue their interest and money and etc. when we talk about his argument, he says, people can wear old clothes and give that money to the famine relief, but I think every person like to wear something new and to look well dressed. Some people do give their old clothes to those who don’t have. I think that is one of the best way to do donations. Rather than throwing away something that you don’t need or something you feel uncomfortable wearing or using you can give it to a poor person. That person will be more than happy from that. Also you will be self-satisfied and you will feel proud of yourself. That’s their personal choice, that how to contribute their own ways. It depends on their earnings