Peter Singer Famine

The United States has risen to become one of the most powerful states in the international system, with some of the wealthiest citizens and cities on earth. Many would argue this unprecedented wealth, along with satisfying an individual's personal needs and wants, creates an obligation to help those in worse conditions. There is an obligation is to help the poorest individuals on the earth who lack the resources to treat preventable illnesses and feed their children, while many in the United States enjoy excessive wealth. Many of these poorer citizens are far away on other continents, yet this moral obligation remains, though it is not left unchallenged purely by distance and statehood responsibility. The debate around helping the poor is much …show more content…
An individual who donates money to a charitable organization, often will not directly see the results of their donation that are given to hungry children on different continents. This affects the obligation that an individual will feel towards the less unfortunate, as they feel less connected and concerned about those suffering many miles away from them. Peter Singer, in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” criticizes the effects that distances can have on an individual’s charitable donations. Singer argues that just because we can see one individual suffering in front of us does not mean that one “ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away” (Singer, 405). To Singer, it makes no moral difference whether one decides to help a child in their town or a child in South Sudan. This thinking can be used to justify focusing on the suffering of an individual in one’s community, over greater suffering in another country, even though Singer believes that “we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us” (Singer, 405). Singer seems to be suggesting that all citizens of affluent nations have an obligation even to those that are far away from us, and that they can not be discriminated against just because of their …show more content…
To Hardin, it is nationhood and the concept of overpopulation that should dictate an individual’s role in helping the poor. He believes those that live far away on other continents, or within other states, should not receive help from those in wealthy nations like the United States. American citizens, according to Hardin, have no obligation to help those that are starving in other countries, even as a result of a failing government. He believes that any foreign aid given to states will only lead to worse outcomes for the rest of the world. If countries provide foreign aid, “poor countries will not learn to mend their ways, and will suffer progressively great emergencies as their population grows.” (Hardin, 419). To Hardin, this is the only way to sustain a world already environmentally overburdened by the current