Analysis Of Singer's Argument On Poverty

Singer’s central argument on how society should react to poverty is flawed. His argument features three assumptions: “…suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad (Singer 231).”, “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 231).”, and “…We ought to give the money (extra money that isn’t being used for basic necessities like food, shelter, and medical care) away, and it is wrong to not do so (Singer 235).” Within his argument, Singer says that we should help people if we don’t have to sacrifice anything of comparable moral significance. In my opinion, this assumption is flawed because not every person has the same objectives or ideas …show more content…
This means that one person could believe that their friendships are more important than a stranger’s life. Therefore, if they were in a situation where they had to choose between saving a stranger’s life or saving a friendship, they could choose to save their friendship and be morally right. This is because the person holds their friendships to the same moral significance as another human life, therefore they would not be morally obligated to save the dying stranger if it meant losing one of their friendships. The flaw in Singer’s argument can also be explained based on the theory of Expected Utilitarianism. According to this theory, the person would have to calculate which option, either saving the stranger or saving their friendship, has the greatest outcome of happiness. This means that they will have to estimate the amount of happiness each option will produce. Thus, when they calculate the options and deem that saving their friendship will produce a greater happiness than saving the stranger, then they are morally obligated to save their