(Insert Instructor)
(Insert Course)
(Insert Date)
The paper is going to explain Singer’s argument in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. It will highlight the steps pointed out in his argument and elaborate their relationship to one another. Finally, it will elucidate Singer’s conclusion on the previously mentioned. Singer underscores that when we have the power to prevent very bad happenings without sacrificing anything significant morally let us do it (Singer, 1972, p.2). That is, it is upon every one of us to ensure we do not allow a situation to graduate from bad to worse, when we are in a position to better it so long as we do not allow another bad thing to occur. In relation to this thesis, Singer through his assumption believes that it is bad for one to suffer or die because of lack of food, shelter and medical care (Singer, 1972, p.1). It is from this premise we can identify the steps that Singer points out in his writing in a bid to justify his arguments.
In the first step, Singer expects individuals, organizations and States to conceptualize the situation at any given time and its consequences if not dealt with accordingly. Since, it will enable them to address the condition in a responsible and morally acceptable manner. They will identify the possible solutions and the means to attain them. It is from this basis they will determine their role after assessing their capacity to address the problem at hand. For instance, Singer believes both individuals and States did little when people were dying in East Bengal because they lacked food, shelter and medical care. He argues,
“ People have, with very few exceptions, not responded to the situation in any significant wayno government has given the sort of massive aid that would enable the refugees to survive for more than a few days.” (Singer, 1972, p.1)
The second step is to assess whether the individual, organization or State has the capacity to deal with the situation to prevent the bad from occurring with an aim of promoting good. This is achievable if by addressing the issue they do not result another bad occurrence, commit a wrong or fail to encourage the good deed(s). In this case, Singer gives his example of assisting a drowning child in a shallow pond. In this endeavor, he dirties his clothes that are insignificant when compared to the death of the child a very bad occurrence that anyone can allow (Singer, 1972, p.2). In this context, Singer conceptualizes the problem of a drowning child and considers his ability to save him in comparison to dirtying his clothes. The latter is not of moral concern at this point because of the good deed of saving the life of a child. However, if the assistance will lead to another bad condition then a better approach is recommendable. For instance, the reserves by United States vanished because of helping the nations that were in famine (Singer, 1972, p.7).Therefore, we should not assist other people until we and our dependents are left suffering.
The third stage is execution and it is after considering the underlying factors as previously discussed. We note from the drowning child example it is the obligation of an individual to assist the child whether one is acquainted or not acquainted to him. Moreover, it does not matter the number of people around the pond all have an equal responsibility to rescue the child. Therefore, in the spirit of assisting we need not to discriminate those in need on geographical basis. Similarly, the number of people involved does not reduce the obligation of addressing the problem as in the drowning child (Singer, 1972, p.2). Singer goes further to underscore the need to differentiate duty and charity in helping the needy in the society. To him when the affluent give to those suffering from famine they are fulfilling a responsibility and it is not a charitable act. Singer (1972) argues,
“We would not be sacrificing anything significant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving.” (p.3) Therefore, we are obligated to assist those who are in need of our help. However, in his postscript, Singer is emphatic that in addressing problems we should control some factors to ensure the assistance is sustainable. For instance, in dealing with famine we should control the population growth and promote agricultural development (Singer, 1972, p.7-8).
In conclusion, Singer believes it is our responsibility to prevent any suffering without compromising something of equivalent significance. He highlights that those who in abundance have owe those lacking, a principle that Singer borrows from Thomas Aquinas. He acknowledges that we should do more to curb starvation. In this case, as funds are given to deal with famine there should be effective population control measures. This is because population control is the reliable means in addressing famine in the end. Furthermore, those giving should do so until the marginal utility level where it causes no suffering to an individual and one’s dependents (Singer, 1972, p.5-6).
Work Cited
Singer, P. "Famine,Affluence,and Morality." Philosophy and Puplic Affairs Vol.1 No.1 (1972): 229-243(revised edition).
