Peter Singer 1978 Analysis

Superior Essays
Show More
In this paper I argue that there is a shared responsibility throughout the affluent countries, in respecting the moral obligation to prevent starvation in other parts of the world. To not do your fair share, would be a serious moral wrong, and anything you do more than this will be morally praiseworthy. This position is contrary to Peter Singer (1978) opinion, who believes that there is not a fair share, but to live at marginal utility. To not do so, Singer (1978) believes would be immoral. I will also argue that forgoing the purchasing of luxury goods, as Singer (1978) recommends, could do more harm than good, thus increasing the amount of starvation and thus the seriousness of the moral wrong.

Singer’s (1978) argument is recognised as one …show more content…
“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, 1978, p.X). “We have income we can give up without giving up the necessities of life” (Singer, 1978, p.X). Therefore, we ought to survive on the necessities and give the rest of our money to charity. It would be “morally callous” (Raley, 2005, p.X) to deny the first premise and there is a strong degree of truth in the third premise. The error, I believe, lies in the second premise and I shall try to demonstrate that.

Singer’s (1978) theory of marginal utility is too demanding for most of us. To live at marginal utility would require a drastic change in our lifestyle and to be continuously working to prevent starvation. Singer (1978) acknowledges that if we were all to do our fair share, than we could easily solve world hunger, but he realises that this is “impossible” (p.X) and so he advocates a stronger principle, to live at marginal utility. To show that we have an obligation to do only our fair share, even if it means that others won’t, we must analyse who the obligation is …show more content…
Singer, Peter, (1972) "Famine, affluence, and morality”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, (pp.229-243).

White, M. D., (2013) “Moral Judgment, in Superman and Philosophy: What Would the Man of Steel Do?” (ed M. D. White), John Wiley & Sons, Oxford. doi: 10.1002/9781118541821.ch1

Wolf, S. (2009), “Moral obligations and social commands”, In S. Newlands & L. M. Jorgensen (Eds.), “Metaphysics and the good: Themes from the philosophy of Robert Merrihew Adams” (pp. 343–367), New York: Oxford University Press.

obligation definition - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/obligation

2. Is the failure of those in affluent countries to do more to prevent starvation in other parts of the world a serious moral wrong? (Answer with reference to Peter

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer Poverty
    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Peter Singer Poverty

    Peter Singer argues that most people will think that Bob’s action is unhuman and wrong than he remind us that we also have the opportunities to save children around the world from dying through organization such UNICEF or Oxfam America etc. By comparison, Singers states “…Bob’s situation resembles that of people able but unwilling to donate to oversea aid….”(203) Since the result of Bob not throwing the switch is that the child died, that can be said the same to the people not donating to help poor children results in children dying. In other word, Singers believes that if we think everything is wrong when it is involving children death then it is also wrong for not donating to the charities because it also leads to children’s death. Singer also provides a calculation and information on how much we need to donate in order to save a 2 year-old child.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Philosophers Jan Narveson And Peter Singer: Moral Responsibility And Duty
    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Philosophers Jan Narveson And Peter Singer: Moral Responsibility And Duty

    What duty do we have to help those who might otherwise starve without our intervention? Is it our responsibility to help our fellow man in need or are we free to stand on the sidelines? Philosophers Jan Narveson and Peter Singer offer contrasting viewpoints on the moral obligations affluent nations have to aid and support the poor. Where Singer reasons that by having the privilege of living in nations of wealth, this benefit carries with it the moral obligation to help those around the world who are sentenced to live in absolute poverty, if only because of where fate had them born. In response, Narveson argues Singer is mistaken: our responsibility and duty first lies to our circle and we should never insist that others take the responsibility…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Attention Whole Foods Shoppers Rhetorical Analysis
    • 966 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Attention Whole Foods Shoppers Rhetorical Analysis

    In the introduction, the author appeals to sympathy using strong and emotionally charged phrases. Saying that “the most effective ways to address hunger in poor countries have fallen out of fashion,” the author makes his readers feel anger toward the Western countries and their indifference to the issues of hunger and poverty in developing countries and in the same time share empathy toward undernourished people of Africa and other starving regions in the world. Throughout the article, the author evokes negative and criticizing emotions toward all the Western world. In the phrase “What’s so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem,” (Paarlberg) he emphasizes that we know how to fix the problem but we are two selfish to do something for…

    • 966 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer
    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

    Singer does not provide criteria to decide on what is morally comparable. Also, I will deny Singer’s conclusion that we are obligated to donate as much as we can to help end poverty. I will argue that donating to charity is supererogatory, which means that donating to charity is not obligated, but instead a positive thing to do. I will also deny his second premise which states that it is our moral responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to other people.…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    John Stuart Mill's 'Utilitarianism'
    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages

    John Stuart Mill's 'Utilitarianism'

    Singer sets the stage for his argument by his first premise, which he believes most would agree too, that human suffering and death due to a deficiency of food, shelter, and medical aide are bad (231). Secondly, he states that if it is in one’s power to prevent something bad from happening, without having to sacrifice anything of equal moral importance, we morally ought to do it. He implies that…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Analysis Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty By Peter Singer
    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Analysis Of The Singer Solution To World Poverty By Peter Singer

    What Makes the World Go Round Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, explains in the article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” that all prosperous people should give all money that is not needed for basic necessities to places that are in need of food and medicine. As an American, I have knowledge this argument would shake up America as a whole. This could create a world of giving up the Capitalistic ways of America and the economic food chain. On the other hand, it could create a world of kindness and less violence. Can you imagine giving up your freedom to help others?…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality, And Lifeboat Ethics
    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality, And Lifeboat Ethics

    (Intro) Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” and Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat ethics” are contradictory philosophical works that examine whether scarce resources should be shared with the poor. Singer’s argument is that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad" (Singer, 1972); therefore all people become morally obligated to help the poor. While Hardin argues that ethics of a Lifeboat should be followed because there is a finite amount of resources available at our disposal (Hardin, 1974, pp.566). Both authors take extreme positions by providing opposing arguments on whether we should be involved in helping the famine or not. This essay will analyze the rational of both authors’ while trying…

    • 1468 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Zell Kravinsky's The Gift: Should We Are Moral People?
    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Zell Kravinsky's The Gift: Should We Are Moral People?

    In life we are faced with a series of “big questions”. These questions answer whether we are decently moral people. The ‘big question” we are going to tackle is ‘are we under an obligation to save lives?’ If so, what is required of us to be a morally decent person? In “The Gift” by Parker we learn that Zell Kravinsky would take a utilitarian approach to this question.…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Great Essays

    Analysis Of Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer
    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Analysis Of Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

    He does this first by presenting a drowning child situation that attempts to convince people to agree with his main moral principle that people are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening that would not result in a loss of something of equal moral value. Singer claims that should a person agree that one is morally obligated to save a drowning child with the cost of dirtying their clothes, they therefore must also agree to donate their surplus of money until they themselves are in poverty, because doing so would not risk anything of equal moral value. Contrary to Singer’s argument, one might still be able to agree with his main moral principle without donating all of their money to help prevent poverty. It follows logically this main moral principle is equally applicable to other issues such as the environment, as the degradation of the environment is another bad thing that is preventable to the same extent as poverty. With critical analyzes of Singer’s argument, it may be concluded that one may consistently agree with the initial premises of Singer’s argument without agreement to his conclusion of morally obligatory…

    • 1478 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Analysis Of Famine Affluence And Morality
    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Analysis Of Famine Affluence And Morality

    In his essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer begins with the assumption that famine should be eradicated, based upon the generally wide held principle that the suffering created by lack of food is bad. He then sets up the general basis for his argument which is: “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer 231). From this general idea, Singer outlines the reasons why it is a person’s moral duty to prevent famine and how a person should help alleviate famine, all of which can be backed by the theory of utilitarianism. Singer claims that a person has the duty morally to give in order to prevent something bad from occurring.…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    John Arthur's Argument Analysis
    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages

    John Arthur's Argument Analysis

    The first problem that I find in Arthurs argument is how he uses the moral evil rule. Singer implied this rule to simply say if you can help someone in need without inconveniencing yourself then you should do so. Arthur goes on to give…

    • 769 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Superior Essays

    Peter Singer Analysis
    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Peter Singer Analysis

    Bogging down the argument in the selfish aspects of the individual, who at most if they do work to combat global suffering is minimally affected detracts from the severity of the problem that is being addressed. What is important is the suffering the absolute poor face, and if the justification to help them is not helping them is murder, then what justification would exist? Singer’s justification still is not enough to truly compel most people into acting, and if the possibility of being a murderer is not enough then no other justification would be either, and any other would be even less compelling. Hence, it is better to assume Peter’s assertion is the case and convince more people to act. Or on a micro-level, is it not better to take Singer at face value and save lives, or at worst Singer be wrong and have still saved…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill And Peter Singer
    • 783 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill And Peter Singer

    What is Utilitarianism? Utilitarianism is a philosophical concept that holds an action to be held right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian’s define the morally right actions as those actions that maximize happiness and minimize misery. Many believe that utilitarianism is an unrealistic theory. Arguments and responses to utilitarianism being too demanding have been made John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer.…

    • 783 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Utilitarianism And Morality, By John Stuart Mill And Peter Singer
    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Utilitarianism And Morality, By John Stuart Mill And Peter Singer

    He writes, “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 6). He stresses that affluent societies have no excuse to not treat ailments we have the cure for, like starvation. Alleviating these poor conditions and human suffering is the easiest way to minimize the sum total of pain, or to follow the Greatest Happiness Principle. Singer expands on how much people are expected to give and mentions the “point of marginal utility” (10). The point of marginal utility as it relates to money essentially means that after a certain point where an individual can live comfortably, any extra income will not make the individual significantly happier.…

    • 1033 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More
  • Improved Essays

    Garrett Hardin Lifeboat Ethics Summary
    • 994 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Garrett Hardin Lifeboat Ethics Summary

    In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Hardin argues about “a world that must solve real and pressing problems of overpopulation, hunger and moral duty.” Hardin sets the stage by first giving his analysis on the structure of the world today by describing the earth as a lifeboat rather than a spaceship. He then dives into how population control, the tragedy of the commons and immigration are some of the main reasons for the problems we have today. Hardin argues that simply helping people and giving charitably will not solve these problems. Peter Singer, in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” seemingly goes against Hardin by saying that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby…

    • 994 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
    Read More

Related Topics

Ready To Get Started?
Discover
Company
Follow
©2024 Cram.com
Privacy Policy |  About Ads |  Site Map |  Advertise  | 
  • Cookie Settings