Peter Singer Famine Affluence And Morality Analysis

The issue of moral obligations towards the global poor has always been a contentious affair to be discussed for fear of problematic resolutions that may affect academia on a personal level. Peter Singer, most notable for his authorship of “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” and the drowning child analogy, presents the rather uncommon normative view that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate more resources to humanitarian causes than the present standard. Singer’s perspective on these seemingly radical moral ideals are confronted by many a pragmatic objection, ranging from entitlement principles to moral inequalities. Nevertheless, Singer builds his argumentative framework in regards to moral obligations to the global poor on solid
None of the precepts of justice aim at rewarding virtue. It is true that there is no legal obligation to save a drowning child; in a morally just society, each individual is most certainly entitled to his just deserts. Singer acknowledges that fundamental issue, “the whole way we look at moral issues – our moral conceptual scheme,” and believes it to be skewed, if not entirely wrong. Just as the individual in Singer’s drowning child analogy expects the deterioration of his personal clothing rather than a reward when he goes in the pond to save the child, so the affluent should expect a sacrifice on their part of entitlements instead of recompense when aiding the poor. In regards to claims regarding the impractical side of Singer’s argument, it should be noted that there is a world of difference between what society should appear to be and what society is at the moment. Singer’s perspective is clearly a normative proposal rather than descriptive, and while Singer does admit that it would be extremely difficult to alter an entire society’s moral code, “at the very least…one can make a start.” It is true that Singer’s argument is somewhat ambitious to apply to the present affluent society at the moment due to radical shifts in the status quo, but that is not a legitimate reason to dismiss what has
The real-world application of Singer’s argument is no doubt difficult to implement, but that cannot be considered a fault due to unreasonable demand. Personal discomfort is to be expected, as Singer’s view on moral obligations and global poverty is uncompromisingly utilitarian. Nevertheless, a minor monetary inconvenience for the affluent should be considered relatively insignificant when compared to the incalculable value of a human life. As there are no major inconsistencies to be seen in Singer’s argumentative framework as a whole, there is merit in accepting his position on the moral obligations towards the global