Phi 208 - Famine, Affluence & Morality

Famine, Affluence & Morality

Renee' Alsup

PHI 208

Instructor Jerry Voltura

February 3, 2013

Famine, Affluence & Morality

In the article "Famine, Affluence & Morality," Peter Singer brings to light and critiques the person's usual and ordinary ways of thinking in general terms. Despite the fact that very few people or countries have accepted and not to mention the fact they have not acted on the major conclusions the draws from his perceptions. More people need to take a look a Singer's perceptions and considerations and put all of this into action more than what we have seen and are seeing. If people do not take action, nothing will change. We can all sit by and complain and do nothing for the aid of the underprivileged, but it takes a strong person with ambition to move the process forward.

Singer's Goal and Argument

Singer's goal in his article is for people to take a long hard look at themselves and what their money is going for and have them wake up in a non-judgmental frame of mind and start helping charities for the third world countries where the underprivileged can obtain the food and medical care they deserve. Singer states in his article "People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief" (Singer, 1972).

Singer begins his argument from the case of famine in Bengal in 1971. People of that country were suffering and the government, nor individuals, were responding to relief aid to do anything about the situation at hand. At this point he puts into perspective two principles. First, "Suffering and death are bad, whether from hunger, deficient housing or inadequate medical care" Second, "If one is in a position to prevent a morally bad state of affairs, without sacrificing something of roughly equal moral importance, one should do so" (Singer, 1972).

In prospect of the first principle, it narrows the idea on whether an individual who helps someone is not dependent on how close an individual is to the person. Distance does not lessen the suffering process. Each of us has an obligation to those who are suffering extensively.

Counter Argument #1

Singer brings morality into play with a hypothesis of a downing child in a pond. "If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought wade in it and pull the child out" (Singer, 1972). This is morally and ethically important because the child's life is in danger and we have the means to save this child's life. Morality not only plays a major part in this situation but we have an obligation as far as saving a life. The child cannot fend for him/herself so we must act on their behalf. The same goes for the relief fund as far as helping the starving and medical needy.

Counter Argument #2

Singer states that if everyone contributed their part in the relief effort, then there would be no need for anyone to contribute but a small portion. People state constantly they give to charities when in fact that is a false statement