Question # 1:
The right to free expression is a very important thing in a society - many of society's or an individual's ends are met through this right. Mill states that "To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought? I can give him no other reason than general utility" (Utilitarianism, 1861). As a result, it can be inferred that rights are generally useful to the individuals who receive them, including the right to freely express oneself.
Free expression permits individuals to convey misfortunes or injustices that must be corrected. If someone's rights are being infringed upon, the only way to communicate that infringement is through free expression. For example, the plight of disenfranchised peoples such as African-Americans and women in 20th century America would have continued, had they not been able to express their feelings of injustice and pain. Given the political right to free expression, a person or group who has a complaint against someone or something else is free to field that complaint, and subsequently get the situation improved.
Free expression also allows individuals to actively educate and share ideas with others, in order to enhance the overall knowledge base of humankind. In order to learn more from each other, people must be allowed to freely exchange information, which is typically done through verbal communication. Whether it is on the court of public opinion, or it is a spreading of researched, verified information, it is necessary for the greater good of the people to be as educated as possible. While there is the possibility for false information or biased opinions, it is the right of individuals to filter through the information they receive to determine its validity for themselves.
Finally, free expression permits the equal and fair standing of all human beings, as everyone is allowed to communicate as much as they deem necessary. This is an important aspect of tolerance, as no one person is allowed to express more than another. As a result, greater equality can be reached, as no one has a greater power of communication and expression than someone else. This grants all people equal power over each other, as all thought and information is shared freely.
Question # 2:
Singer's assertion that people with the benefit of wealth have the responsibility to help others in need is absolutely correct. According to him, it is the moral imperative to humanity to help everyone, however, possible, for the sake of the collective good. "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it" (Singer, p. 231). To do otherwise would constitute a blatant disregard for the suffering of others, particularly when one has the means to end or alleviate that suffering.
There are those who believe that people should not feel a responsibility to help those they do not know personally. This argument holds to the assertion that people should only really worry about themselves and their immediate loved ones; strangers, on the other hand, can warrant much less attention. "It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away" (Singer, p. 231). This facet of Singer's moral call to action to help others revolves around the basic loyalty to humanity, whether stranger or brother, that men must have. If one has the means to help someone in need, they must absolutely do it.
There are also those who think that spending resources on those who will not return it in some fashion is easy to take advantage of, and constitutes theft on the part of those who receive said assistance. Also, because these facets of utilitarianism are thought to be merely optional by some, they should not be painted as mandatory. For example, the concept of helping someone is thought to be helpful and good, but not something that one absolutely has to do.
Individuals do not believe that life should demand this much of an individual; however, Singer correctly asserts that it does; many of the tenets of his philosophy revolve around the rejection of some of our common intuitions to hold onto what we have - "The principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position" (Singer, p. 232). With this in mind, I believe that Singer is correct, and that people should help others if they have the means to do so, regardless of how far or how personally unfamiliar they are to the person.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Parker, Son and Bourn, 1863.
Singer, Peter. "Famine, Affluence, and Morality." Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1972:229-243.
