Peter Singer Famine
Short Paper
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer argues the importance of giving to those in need, especially as those of us in affluent nations have an overabundance of resources. In this paper, I will exposit Singer’s argument and explain the methods and points that he makes. Specially, I will show that through his assumptions and implications, as well as how he refutes counter arguments
Singer starts out his argument by explaining the situation at hand, “people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care” (pg.10). He points out that this is not an unavoidable disaster. Humans actions have the capability to prevent the suffering that is occurring. Singer says that there Is not a specific reason why …show more content…
10). Singer starts with this assumption because it is something most people agree on. It is best to start with this well agreed upon assumption, because then at the starting of the argument Singer and his audience can have common ground. In addition to reaching the largest possible audience, Singer also adds in “from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. This is important because it can be argued that there is good that comes from some suffering and death. They also aren’t always preventable. However, suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are all preventable, this leads to Singers next …show more content…
“The second objection to my attack on the present distinction between duty and charity is one which has from time to time been made against utilitarianism” (pg.15). Basically this objection is saying that if we, as a society work so incredibly hard to fight against the misery in the world we will get burned out and ultimately not be able to serve to the best of our ability. The idea behind Singers assumption is to make giving our moral duty and not just something we do out of charity. To combat this objection Singer brings back his main point, “We ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance” (pg.15). However, this is a very difficult thing for people to grasp. We are self-interested people and don’t want to give up anything of comparable moral importance in order to benefit
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer argues the importance of giving to those in need, especially as those of us in affluent nations have an overabundance of resources. In this paper, I will exposit Singer’s argument and explain the methods and points that he makes. Specially, I will show that through his assumptions and implications, as well as how he refutes counter arguments
Singer starts out his argument by explaining the situation at hand, “people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care” (pg.10). He points out that this is not an unavoidable disaster. Humans actions have the capability to prevent the suffering that is occurring. Singer says that there Is not a specific reason why …show more content…
10). Singer starts with this assumption because it is something most people agree on. It is best to start with this well agreed upon assumption, because then at the starting of the argument Singer and his audience can have common ground. In addition to reaching the largest possible audience, Singer also adds in “from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. This is important because it can be argued that there is good that comes from some suffering and death. They also aren’t always preventable. However, suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are all preventable, this leads to Singers next …show more content…
“The second objection to my attack on the present distinction between duty and charity is one which has from time to time been made against utilitarianism” (pg.15). Basically this objection is saying that if we, as a society work so incredibly hard to fight against the misery in the world we will get burned out and ultimately not be able to serve to the best of our ability. The idea behind Singers assumption is to make giving our moral duty and not just something we do out of charity. To combat this objection Singer brings back his main point, “We ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance” (pg.15). However, this is a very difficult thing for people to grasp. We are self-interested people and don’t want to give up anything of comparable moral importance in order to benefit