Philosopher Peter Singer believes that we have an obligation to alleviate famine. His position can be understood by first understanding a case presented in his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. Singer examines a situation where a child is drowning in a pond. He asks the reader if a passerby is obligated to wade in and save the child from drowning. He comes to the conclusion that if nothing of moral value is lost, the passerby is under moral obligation to save the child. He then makes several changes to the case to further support his position on alleviating famine. He ultimately comes to the conclusion that one is obligated to save the child in every case, and if multiple children are drowning and there are observers not moving to
…show more content…
To support utilitarianism, even if money is not used for things of no moral importance, it should be used to promote the most happiness. Which charity should one give their money to in order to accomplish this goal? Singer gives some advice on how to know what charities will help the most people and in turn promote the most happiness in his article “Good Charity, Bad Charity”. Singer gives one idea on chooses a charity when he states “In general, where human welfare is concerned, we will achieve more if we help those in extreme poverty in developing countries, as our dollars go much further there” (Singer 2013). Utilitarianism is a “theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (“Definition of Utilitarianism”). One unclear point of the theory is whether an action that promotes little happiness to a great number of people should be valued over an action that promotes great happiness to a few. In “Good Charity, Bad Charity”, Singer argues that in most situations it should be obvious that a greater benefit to fewer people is better. He gives the example of donating to a museum that thousands can enjoy or to a philanthropy that can save only one thousand from going blind (Singer 2013). Therefore, the best charity in Singer’s opinion is the one that promotes the most happiness. The belief that one must weigh which option “is likely to lead to the bigger improvement in the lives of those affected by it” and choose accordingly, can in fact be in line with the utilitarian view (Singer
To support utilitarianism, even if money is not used for things of no moral importance, it should be used to promote the most happiness. Which charity should one give their money to in order to accomplish this goal? Singer gives some advice on how to know what charities will help the most people and in turn promote the most happiness in his article “Good Charity, Bad Charity”. Singer gives one idea on chooses a charity when he states “In general, where human welfare is concerned, we will achieve more if we help those in extreme poverty in developing countries, as our dollars go much further there” (Singer 2013). Utilitarianism is a “theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (“Definition of Utilitarianism”). One unclear point of the theory is whether an action that promotes little happiness to a great number of people should be valued over an action that promotes great happiness to a few. In “Good Charity, Bad Charity”, Singer argues that in most situations it should be obvious that a greater benefit to fewer people is better. He gives the example of donating to a museum that thousands can enjoy or to a philanthropy that can save only one thousand from going blind (Singer 2013). Therefore, the best charity in Singer’s opinion is the one that promotes the most happiness. The belief that one must weigh which option “is likely to lead to the bigger improvement in the lives of those affected by it” and choose accordingly, can in fact be in line with the utilitarian view (Singer