Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer
Famine, Affluence, and Morality
Your name
PHI 208
Prof. John Doe
6 December 2013
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” written by Peter Singer, Singer’s goal is to convince people that our decisions and actions can prevent other countries from suffering. He suggests that people should do what is morally right by contributing financially to aid those who are starving, rather than purchasing “wants” for those who can afford it. Singer argues his position, provides counter-arguments, and explains his concepts for aiding countries in need.
Singer argues that people have not given enough in relief funds and that “governments have not given the sort of aid that would enable refugees to survive …show more content…
Jan Narveson (2004) wrote in her article Is World Poverty a Moral Problem for the Wealthy? That she does not think we owe the poor anything special. People may benefit for charities, but we should not be looked at as the solution to whatever problems they have. I agree with her in the sense that it is not the responsibility of another country’s government to take care of a poor country. It is the same as I do not think the wealthy should have to pay more taxes than the poor. We all start from somewhere and some millionaires and billionaires had to start from the bottom as well. We all work hard for the salaries we earn. On the other hand, I think that charities are used for a good cause that benefit others rather than ourselves. Singer definitely had some points that if we all give a little, the world may be a better place. Narveson also wrote in another article Welfare and Wealth, Poverty and Justice in Today’s World (2004), “each of us could do vastly more than we do to the needy. That we do not is a serious moral failing.” This is completely true and supports Singer’s views as well. However, her statement is far more accurate in what we could do, rather than what we should do. My view would fall under deontological ethics. Mosser (2010) states that “deontological ethics focuses on the will of the person carrying out the act in question, his or her intention in carrying it out, and, particularly, the rule according to which the act is carried out”. For me this means that there could be different outcomes for Singer’s argument and that every aspect should be looked at. It doesn’t make his view right or wrong, but it doesn’t make the views that counter his right or wrong
Your name
PHI 208
Prof. John Doe
6 December 2013
In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” written by Peter Singer, Singer’s goal is to convince people that our decisions and actions can prevent other countries from suffering. He suggests that people should do what is morally right by contributing financially to aid those who are starving, rather than purchasing “wants” for those who can afford it. Singer argues his position, provides counter-arguments, and explains his concepts for aiding countries in need.
Singer argues that people have not given enough in relief funds and that “governments have not given the sort of aid that would enable refugees to survive …show more content…
Jan Narveson (2004) wrote in her article Is World Poverty a Moral Problem for the Wealthy? That she does not think we owe the poor anything special. People may benefit for charities, but we should not be looked at as the solution to whatever problems they have. I agree with her in the sense that it is not the responsibility of another country’s government to take care of a poor country. It is the same as I do not think the wealthy should have to pay more taxes than the poor. We all start from somewhere and some millionaires and billionaires had to start from the bottom as well. We all work hard for the salaries we earn. On the other hand, I think that charities are used for a good cause that benefit others rather than ourselves. Singer definitely had some points that if we all give a little, the world may be a better place. Narveson also wrote in another article Welfare and Wealth, Poverty and Justice in Today’s World (2004), “each of us could do vastly more than we do to the needy. That we do not is a serious moral failing.” This is completely true and supports Singer’s views as well. However, her statement is far more accurate in what we could do, rather than what we should do. My view would fall under deontological ethics. Mosser (2010) states that “deontological ethics focuses on the will of the person carrying out the act in question, his or her intention in carrying it out, and, particularly, the rule according to which the act is carried out”. For me this means that there could be different outcomes for Singer’s argument and that every aspect should be looked at. It doesn’t make his view right or wrong, but it doesn’t make the views that counter his right or wrong