Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

Writing in November 1971, Peter Singer condemns developed nations for not making the necessary decisions to save East Bengalis from evitable starvation, violence, and disease. Even the most prominent aid contributors such as Britain and Australia spend much more on domestic luxury projects than on reducing fellow human suffering. Using Bengal as an example, Singer asserts that people have a moral obligation to give significant amounts of money to aid organizations. In disagreement, I will argue that we also have a right to keep our earnings because we have entitlements in terms of autonomy. While giving significant amounts of money to charity may be a morally positive act, it is not a moral obligation.
Singer’s main argument for donations …show more content…
While doing so might decrease global suffering, it would also greatly reduce the amount of happiness in the world. From a utilitarian viewpoint where actions are right when they promote and maximize happiness, devotion to Singer’s principles would not be right because there would be no net increase in happiness. Living by Singer’s argument would also infringe upon each person’s autonomy and violate the idea of what Arthur calls “entitlements,” namely that people can “have rights or may justly deserve something” (584). If you do not buy the previous case of the working man, perhaps you will be convinced by this argument. Autonomy and entitlements are not the same thing, but the acceptance that entitlements exist should lead to acceptance of the right to moral autonomy. Arthur argues that we naturally possess rights that factor against any possible duty we have to help. For example, we have the right to our body and we are not expected to improve the lives of others by donating our organs. We could do so and be hailed as heroes, but our entitlement to our body outweighs any moral duty. Arthur poses that the exception would be an agreement or promise on our part to provide aid to another. Arthur distinguishes between two types of rights: negative rights are “rights against interference by others” …show more content…
For instance, he preemptively addresses the amount of donations to be made in his original essay. Singer makes the point that most of us are somewhat self-interested and disposed to spend money on ourselves. Most people will not follow his argument, i.e. give as much as they are morally obligated to. The more donations the rest of us give, the more suffering we relieve. However, if everyone does this, there will be unnecessary sacrifice and too much aid. Singer resolves this paradox by saying that information about donations are public knowledge; people can see how much has already been given, so they will not give more than is needed to reach a goal. People will not donate to the point of reducing their own families to the same state as those they are donating