Famine, Affluence, and Morality

"Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Peter Singer is trying to argue that "the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situationÐ'... cannot be justified; indeed,Ð'... our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society"(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer's argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter's statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.

Peter Singer organizes his arguments into an outline form allowing a reader to take individual thoughts, adding them together giving a "big picture." Within the first few pages, Singer shares two guiding assumptions in regards to his argument to which I stated above. The first assumption states "that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad" (231). Singer steps away from the typical writing style; he states the assumption yet he does not give a personal comment in regards to the assumption. He chooses to do so because the assumption itself is surely uncontroversial; most people would agree, but to those who don't agree, there are so many possibilities at which to arrive to this assumption that, after all, if they don't yet comprehend its truth, it would be hard to convince them of its accuracy. Speaking for myself, if I encountered an individual that does not agree to the assumption that death by avoidable causes is bad; I would not hesitate to declare them of being heartless. There are many cases, whether across oceans on foreign land or areas to which we live, where people are dying because of inescapable, unfortunate reasons. Within such cases, even a possible little voice in the back of the head can lead one to wonder who has the responsibility of helping those who are enduring such unnecessary deaths. This sense of wonder leads us to Singer's second assumption; "if it is in our power to prevent something from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it" (231). To better clarify what this assumption is looking for, Singer points out that "It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and not to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important" (231). I like how Singer further clarifies his assumption, making it easier for me to understand what seems like a specific instruction "manual" of what we presume to be doing. Although we might sometimes wish that we could ignore certain things in our life, it would be nearly impossible for an individual, or government, to certify being unaware of the happenings to which I have been discussing.

With Singer's second assumption, it could seem at first that it attempts to make the reader feel guilty. But if we choose to look closer, we can see its "flaws." Singer gives us two suggestions that make his assumption even more complex to deal with; he gives us the flaws. His first argument says, "The principle takes no account of proximity or distance" (231). He is trying to imply that an excuse claiming that the sufferers are too far away to be able to help is an unacceptable excuse. Our world has become so much more technologically advanced in so many different ways, it has made possible to communication with the other side of the planet. Singer refers to it as a "global village," it then reminds me how connected we can be to other areas of the world, therefore making me question why people can't use that "global village" to help others out. Why do so many people leave new technology unrecognized, ignoring the chance to save someone? I often find myself getting caught up in the every day life, sometimes focusing only on myself; I forget to do those small tasks that take hardly any effort at all, those amazing moments of serving others who need it most. But then again, I am not a superhero; I need sleep and can't devote all my time to saving people, why couldn't I let someone else take their turn. Singer's second argument, "numbers lessen obligation" (233) follows up my last "excuse" of pushing the blame to others. Singer claims that "one feels less guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others, similarly placed, who have also done nothing" (232-233). This assumption can become so complicated to explain, yet it seems so simple to understand. People assume that they do not need to give their 100% because there are others who should be also giving their 100%, possibly even more than which then could cover the lack of others, right? "The result of everyone doing what he really ought to do cannot be worse than the result of everyone doing less than he ought to do, although the result of everyone doing what he reasonably believes he ought to do could be" (234). So, in my words, I think that the basic lesson is that everyone should give as much as they can; which would then also mean that everyone would have to be more willing to give instead of pointing to others to take responsibility.

Singer thinks that, "the outcome of this argument is that our traditional moral categories are upset. The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not in the place we normally draw it" (235). He believes that his argument changes our understanding of our traditional moral categories. This is where I find myself wondering about my own life, surprising myself to think of when I might have been able to do more, not as a duty but as a charity or even the other way around. There are many examples I can think of where I did one thing, but if I thought about it and did it a little different, I would be choosing to do the better good. Instead of always spending money to purchase goods for myself, it is better, less selfish, to give that money to others who need it more than myself. Singer tells us that "we ought to give money away, and it is wrong not to do so" (235). But earlier he states "the charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned" (235). Isn't he, in a small sense, contradicting himself? My own belief is that charity should not be given unless the heart allows it to be so. I feel, even though it saddens my heart, that it is not wrong to not give money. It is not a good charity