Write By Example Of This Famine, Affluence, And Morality Essay

Before we delve into Singer’s arguments as outlined in the book, Exploring Ethics, it will be important that we familiarize ourselves first with the whole concept of ethics. Ethics in its simplest definition is that accepted code of behavior that is expected of a member of a society or a given profession. It involves the principles that enable one to know what is wrong and right. Singer in his book tries to bring the correlation between famine (and other evils), affluence as well as morality and how these come into play whenever ethics is being discussed.
Singer tries to bring out the aspect of morality by arguing that there is no harm in giving if this is considered to be right and will help save someone who is on the brink of starvation. He argues that it’s morally justifiable for individuals (the Affluent) to sacrifice part of what they possess to save someone who is starving. He adds that it is possible to prevent famine, starvation, sufferings, wars and deaths if only individuals and countries were to rise to the occasion and take up the responsibilities to avert the situation by sacrificing part of their luxuries for the benefit of the affected people or Nations.
He justifies his proposition by arguing that individuals have not been able to do much as is expected of them. He claims that individuals have not been able to picket against the government to show solidarity with the affected. That, individuals have not been able to advocate for the increase in government budgetary allocation and increased funding through their elected representatives. The government too is not spared on this. Singer claims that no government has done enough in providing assistance that would otherwise help save the situation.
Singer objects the notion that one should only help those close to him by geographical location, or that countries should only help their citizens and not to bother about the sufferings of other people or nations. He responds by saying that extending a helping hand should be done without any form of discrimination. He is also opposed to the idea that an individual should contribute at the same level with the rest if he or she is in a position to contribute more than the rest. He encourages people and countries to contribute more if they can without looking at what others are contributing, at least for the sake of the suffering population. Again, he is opposed to the idea that an individual shouldn’t contribute again whenever situations require him or her to do so simply because he or she has done that before. Here he says we are morally obligated to give again and again whenever we can so as to save lives.
John Arthur has the right to his opinion by holding on to the view that rights should be granted equal considerations just as is done with responsibilities and interests. In his response to Singer, he argues that the existence of what he called evil in some parts of the society or world doesn’t guarantee an assurance that individuals not directly affected should, therefore, look for ways to mitigate it. However, I would like to remind Arthur that it is ethical and morally upright to be part of the solution whenever your neighbor is affected just as Singer has indicated. His position that we should consider equality while discharging what is morally right beats logic and is a show of lack of human heart and the ability be of help to others in times of need.