Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”
Prof. David Tredinnick
When it comes to the article "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" mostly argues about not one but more than several things. In some point most people can agree with his arguments unlike others whom may not see his point of view. One of these arguments was lack of food. This was brought up or inspired by the starvation of Bangladesh his main focus was that if one can use one's wealth to reduce suffering for example, by aiding famine-relief efforts without any significant reduction in the well-being of oneself or others, it is immoral not to do so. According to Singer, such inaction is clearly immoral. If a child is drowning in a shallow pond and someone can save it but chooses not to; nor does placing greater geographical distance between the person in need and the potential helper reduce the latter's moral obligations. “It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. Previously, this may hardly have been feasible, but it is quite feasible now. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society.” Singers main issue was can you be helpful without wanting too or can you help someone without wanting but still can help a very good example was the kid in pond, you can be at near inches but not wanting to help the kid is a big difference from wanting to help the same kid miles away.
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. It is in our power to prevent this bad thing. We can prevent it without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. The only way to prevent lack of food & shelter without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance is to give maximally (or at least very much more than we currently do). When it comes to doing the right thing, it is more than reasonable if you see that someone is struggling with doors having hand full of grocery bag opening the door is just doing the right thing when the argument started it was more or less not only doing the smallest right things but to go out more than our way to help someone out in majority’s needs. I can most definitely agree with this because there have been more than several incident s in which I had difficulty helping someone out that did not involve in my residing living or the people in which are usually around I had found it difficult because it was someone that I would think would not need help but yet I was wrong to judge a guy with extreme strength to actually need help picking objects up because I would always see the sir everyday lifting weights. Well, come to find out that just because your extremely strong does not mean you have the brains to get stuff right. The guy eventually asked for help and so I did but doing a charity compared to actually extending out a major hand to feed someone is way different from it.
When it comes to charity most people think that giving a couple of pennies is not doing anything. There are many different types of charity; some people help out in churches and communities to make it a better place to live in, other people help foundations and volunteer and not expect to get paid for the work that they have given. Some charity can also be paid but the morals to actually doing something are having incentive to actually do the work. Showing that you care without expecting any type of reward to me Singer’s analysis requires us to do a great deal for others. Also rethinking their views about "Charity." I believe that’s what morality...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document