Review Of 'Argument Of Proximity Or Distance'

There are two principles: The first is the idea of “no account of proximity or distance.” The second is the idea of “this principle makes no distinction between cases.” Sometimes, one person can deal with everything about cases of disaster, but other times one person can just help in one situation with a few people. Singer states that his idea in the second principle is the need to defend those in need more. For example among the Bengali refugees, many people are in a terrible situation, but there is a psychological separation between the refugees and other people who feel less guilty about doing nothing and so do nothing. However, in fact, feelings can make no difference to people’s moral obligations. Then, he claims that if people provided …show more content…
However, he agrees that governments of affluent nations should give fund many times because giving privately is not enough. Another reason for not giving to famine relief is that “until there is effective population control, relieving famine merely postpones starvation.” (6) This point, or argument, about reducing people’s suffering is ongoing today. A third point occurs with the conclusion associated with “the question of how much we all ought to be giving away.”(6) He claims people ought to give funds until suffering people can get marginal utility and that people should prevent bad behavior that causes disasters. The exception to this idea is if they need to sacrifice something morally important. A significant change in society’s way of life is required, and a moderate form of the principle contends that people would need to only give away enough to guarantee that the consumer society to continue. Success depends on people providing solutions to problems more than just giving money to famine relief. From this perspective, he states people can do something about this problem, “either through orthodox methods of famine relief or through population control and