Peter Singer Famine Rhetorical Analysis

Critical Analysis In his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer outlines his argument for helping those in need in the global community. His main argument is that humans can stop suffering based on our moral decisions.1 Singer calls for the definition of ‘charity’ in our society to have moral implications. People should give governmental and privately. all need to give to charity and all at the same time. Peter Singer immediately encourages acceptance of his first moral standpoint with his comment: “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” (413). At first, what he is asking seems very straight forward, but on closer examination, he is asking for a complete shift in our thinking and our existence. He supports this with the idea that distance makes no difference in our moral obligations. The old adage that charity begins
He states: “If it is in our power to prevent something comparably bad to happening, or to do something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent”(413). Singer uses a persuasive technique in his example of the “drowning child” case to show how the weaker principle can still stand.. He explains that “if I am walking past a shallow pound and see a child drowning, I ought to wade in and pull the child out.” This sounds like an application of the first principle stated above, but he goes further: [pulling out the child] “it will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant”(413). This example ties in his principle concerning moral significance. The comparison between a child’s life and dirty clothes demonstrates that the child’s life would definitively be more important than the clothes that may get ruined. He further adds on to this