Famine, Affluence and Morality

Peter Singer's article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, presents a strong view on the moral values which people all around the world today are giving to the global famine taking place these days. Singer tries to influence who ever reads this article to take action and provide relief for the increased suffering going on due to famine. In his article, he incorporates arguments to illustrate the moral importance that should be given to the suffering of famine. The majority of the population today view offerings as a good action to do but do not believe it is wrong not to do it. Singer stresses how it is wrong to know such suffering is going on and not do anything about it, regardless of the distance between you and the victim and if anyone else is assisting towards the cause. Although Singer makes some strong points, he also falls weak in a few of his arguments.

Singer begins his article by stressing the famine suffering which is currently taking place in East Bengal. Singer starts his argument by imposing the reader to accept the moral premises which are "that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad," and "that if it is in our power to prevent it from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it" (Singer, Famine pg.599). Singer then goes on to exploit a broad-based approach to his assertion in that "we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us" (Singer Famine pg600). Singer emphasizes on the fact that distance is not a reason to fail in doing what is morally right to do. The distance between you and the person in need is not a moral justification to discard their need.

Singer also emphasizes on an interesting point in his assertion which implies that two wrongs do not make a right. Singer states, "one feels less guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others, similarly placed, who have also done nothing" (Singer Famine pg600). Singer expresses that one should not feel any less bound in doing what is morally right just because the person beside us is not doing so. On the contrary, one should sacrifice even more because others fail to fulfill their moral responsibilities. While Singer's argument somehow seems unsound when he expresses that one should give everything away that is not needed to survive, he acknowledges that this would not be the same if everyone was to contribute their share and implement their moral commitment.

Singer questions the idea that helping with famine relief is considered an act of charity or as many philosophers have come to call it, Ð''supererogatory', which is an act which would be good to do, but not wrong not to do (Singer Famine pg601). Singer presents his argument by giving an example of how people would purchase clothe in order to look good and not necessarily because they need it to keep warm. In this case one avoids to contribute in helping the suffering of famine in order to please oneself in insignificant ways. Then, by not purchasing new clothe we are not sacrificing anything of moral significance and it gives the person the ability to contribute to the cause. That is why Singer argues that it is not good not to give when we constantly give to ourselves in ways of no great concern. Thus, according