- Explain Singer’s goal in this article, and then present his argument in relation to this issue.
The article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” written by Peter Singer is all centered on one main goal. This major aim of the article is to encourage the affluent people to have the moral obligation and donate some of their vast resources, so that they can be used for humanitarian causes. He argues that affluent people who live in the developed world have a moral obligation to donate some of their enormous resources to numerous poor people living in the developing world. This conclusion is derived from two principles which are concretely backed by the authority of common sense. That first principle as explained by (Singer, 1972) is that death and suffering from being short of shelter, food, and medical attention are bad.
The second principle is that if it is in our ability and power to put to an end these bad things and suffering of the people from occurring, without any sacrificial of anything of equivalent moral significance, then we ought to honorably do it, as stated by (Singer, 1972) All these arguments put forward by Singer were to encourage most of the affluent countries to give more of their resources to the unfortunate than they are doing. This would help a great deal in dealing with some of the calamities such as famine and disaster. Thus this would encourage people to drastically alter their ways of life so that they could help out other people who are in need.
- Explain three counter-arguments to Singer’s position that he addresses in the article, and then indicate Singer’s responses to those counter-arguments
The example given of the child is one of the counter-arguments. The child is close by and immediate help can be given. However, the poor people around the globe are spatially distant and far away. Leaving the child without any help could lead to it drowning; however in many scenarios donating to the relief agencies could help in the preventions of deaths occurring in the future. (Singer, 1972) then replies to this by claiming that mere distance in space and distance in time are in and they should be considering in determining what people ought to do. It can’t be deemed less wrong to kill a nonthreatening innocent person if the bullet is shot from a long or short distance so as to kill the victim.
Another counter-argument is that for the drowning child example, it is only one person who can help out at that instance. In the case of disaster relief, there are a multitude of people who can help out. (Singer, 1972) replies to this by claiming that it does not matter morally to the question, how many people could help out, what you ought to do. Failure of anyone to act in a disastrous situation would be the failure of all. Thinking that others could help out, does not in any way, lessen the responsibility. If one person takes on the responsibility, the obligation of the others people lapse.
Another objection presented is that incase a famine occurs, and the following holds: if all the people contributed an amount of ten dollar it would contribute enough resources to avert the famine and save all the people. Does it then occur to an individual that they should not give more than ten dollars? This would mean that an individual does not have the obligation to give more than ten dollars. (Singer, 1972) then counters this by stating that this reasoning is faulty. The argument would only be correct if the conclusion was arrived at hypothetically. If everybody in circumstances exactly comparable to those I face gave ten dollars, I would have no responsibility to give more than ten dollars. But what it would be right for me to doing nonfactual, hypothetical or imaginary circumstances does not determine what it is right for me to do in actual circumstances.
- Define Singer’s concept of marginal utility and identity how it relates to this argument
For any service or good, the marginal utility of that service or good diminishes as its quantity continues to increase (Hume, 1999). This is an indication that with more of something, the less the additional benefit that it gives by having more of it. Singer applies this principle as his idea that the excess resources held by the affluent in the society would be beneficial to the starving children. The $200 which is not needed for survival by the rich would be making a desperately poor person happier even though it would increase their happiness a little bit.
- Compare how the ideas of duty and charity change in Singer's proposed world?
Singer makes it a moral obligation for the affluent people to help the poor in the society. This amounts to duty as it requires them to help them out. This is an indication that Singer expects all the people to give back to the society not because they feel like giving back to the society but because it is their duty and responsibility. Charity is all concerned with what an individual feels he is able to give back to the society in helping the needy people. To Singer charity is not acceptable in the society as he expects that each individual has a duty to the society due to their moral obligation.
- Personal Response to Singer
People should devote most of their resources to famine relief and other disasters which bring forth suffering to the people. However, the affluent people should not be pressurized to doing so as stated by Singer that it is their moral obligation. People should be able to prevent the bad states of affairs without sacrificing anything which is morally significant. This then would give people the desire to help out other members of the society who are suffering without hindering theirs state of happiness.
References
Singer, P. (1972). ‘‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality,’’ Philosophy and Public Affairs
1, 229–243.
Hume, D. (1999). An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Edited by Tom L. Beauchamp. Oxford University Press, Oxford
