Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

Everyday millions of people around the world suffer in circumstances, in which they could die from lack of proper care and resources. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer acknowledges this issue facing humanity and argues for the moral obligation to give large amounts of money to those in need. Singer believes that all who are able should be giving up many, if not all of their luxuries to help give the less fortunate their necessities. I will begin by summarizing the argument that Singer dictates in his article and then explain my reasoning for believing his notions to be sound and valid. Singer’s argument comes down to three premises, followed by his actual argument. The first premise is that death and suffering from lack of resources …show more content…
In which the child in Africa becomes even more irrelevant. We are not legally bound to save the drowning child. If I were to see him or her calling for help, and continue my stroll through the park, I could not be arrested for doing so. Had the parents been doing their job, maybe this child wouldn’t be drowning in the first place. I cannot be blamed for the outcome. Yet, the very idea of walking past this child on the brink of death, for most, is morally reprehensible. Most of society would shame me for not acting. If I do save the child, then I do not do so out of duty. I am not a police officer or a soldier or a lifeguard on the beach. It is not my “job” to save and defend the public. When I save the child, I do it out of compassion and a value for life. Whether I am obligated to show this compassion for those abroad is debatable. However, it is much easier for me to sympathize with the drowning victim, who is directly in my vicinity, inundating the area with his pleas for life, and will most certainly die in my presence. This idea points toward the failure of Singer’s analogy. If saving the child comes from compassion and is not an obligation, then saving anyone is strictly your