Singer's Argument Analysis

In this paper I will reconstruct Singer’s argument as well as argue why his argument is unsound. In Singer’s paper, Famine, Affluence and Morality, he argues that any kind of suffering from lack of food, healthcare and shelter is a bad thing. He further argues that if we have the ability to prevent something bad from happening, that it is our duty as moral beings to prevent suffering unless we have to sacrifice something of significant moral importance. In class we called it the prevent suffering principle. An example that Singer gives is of the prevent suffering principle is to imagine a young child drowning in a shallow pond. He goes on to state that you have the ability to save the child but you have to sacrifice getting your clothes dirtied …show more content…
In class, we discussed how contributing a certain amount of your paycheck can become taxing and lead to you not being any better off the people you are attempting to help. I would argue that it is possible rather than donating large sums of money to contribute some money and time as this may be easier financially. Another counterargument that I would issue against his argument is that even Singer himself does not fully practice his principles. He only donates about twenty percent of his yearly income to charity. If he truly believed in the principles that he is campaigning then he would undoubtedly give a majority of his income to charities. If Singer was truly attempting to prevent the greatest amount of human suffering for the value of the contributions that he gives to charity, it could potentially be possible that he did not take into account the suffering that he was experiencing in his life due to the heavy financial burden of making large contributions of money. Not having the capability to support yourself but helping others with large contributions can cause suffering for yourself so, the principle to prevent suffering can be used to argue against his other argument on giving money away to prevent suffering. In order to prevent suffering due to the financial burden, the best decision would be to reduce the amount of money being contributed. There have been many cases that different charities have misused money and other contributions. There also have been cases where the money have been used inefficiently. In addition, the large amounts of money being donated may not even impact the individuals you are attempting to help. Being able to hold on to most of your money means that you know where it is going towards and you have the option to use it more efficiently