Famine, Affluence, and Morailty
December, 5, 2012
Famine, Affluence, and Morality 2
In the article, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," by Peter Singer, he is addressing the subject of charity, morality in general, and giving us a different insight in the thoughts about famine relief. Singer points out some interesting things in his article. I do agree that people, espeically the rich, should do more than what most of them actually do. This paper will explain Singer's goal, his counter arguments, his concept of marginal utility, and the ideas of charity and duty.
Singer has a goal that he presents in his argument. He argues basically, that these people who are living wealthy should help other countries in need. He puts forward two main reasons. First, that people should not be dying from inadequate medical care, hungar, or deficient housing. Secondly, if someone is in a position to help prevent a bad state of affair, then they should help, but without sacrificing something of equal importence.
Singer also had counter arguments that he presented in his article. He claims that if everyone donated just a little, what they should, then everyone would only need to donate a small amount. Therefore, there would be no reason for one to donate more than another. So, Singer responds stating that it is not true that everyone donates what they should so this would be irrelevant. Another counter argument is since there aren't many people donating and those who do donate, should just keep giving until they are almost as poor as those they are helping. Well. this just does not seem fair! And it's not becuase this would result in them donating too much. Singer also points out that this would only happen if they did not know what others were donating but they may act as if they are all donating the same. Singer also says that we...