Peter Singer Famine Summary

Peter Singer’s piece entitled “Famine, Affluence and Morality” touches upon what he believes our moral duty is in regards to providing for the poor. Specifically, he uses the example of the poverty in East Bengal, but he uses his arguments to defend the general hypothesis that “[i]f 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.” His first argument, in which he states this “strong hypothesis,” points out that this is not a demanding moral principle. It requires us, as global citizens, to simply prevent what is bad, but it makes no mention about what we must morally do to promote good. Furthermore, we are only obliged to prevent bad …show more content…
“Charity” implies an action that is good to do, but not bad if it is not done. Social norms typically refer to monetary donations as “charity,” but he believes that if we called it a “duty,” people would be more likely to donate due the connotation associated with that term. Singer states that the term “duty” will help society understand that it is morally wrong to not donate. A simple change in definition can change the way the entire world views donation to famine-stricken countries. By re-drawing the distinction between duty and charity, we would reinforce the urgency of this matter. Society needs to re-evaluate the level at which we value our own satisfaction. It is morally wrong to have children dying of malnutrition on one side of the world while there are others who live with an incredible amount of excess wealth. This unequal distribution is simply not how the human race is supposed to live. To help others maintain their fundamental right to life, we must be willing to care for them by dividing resources equally. However, Singer takes a very extreme view on how far we should take our moral duty to fund famine relief. His opinion is that we should live to the level of marginal utility, meaning it is our moral duty to give all that we can to famine relief and work overtime to do so (assuming we do not cause excess suffering to ourselves). It is difficult for the majority of the population to agree with this argument to the extent that Singer does. His idea that everyone must put themselves at the level of marginal utility is simply unrealistic and unappealing. If one were to do so, and then lose their job or encounter an unexpected illness or expense, they would be putting their well-being at risk.