The Ethics of Famine Relief - Singer's Approach

THE ETHICS OF FAMINE RELIEF:

SINGER'S APPROACH

Affuence & Obligation: The Core of Singer's Position

i. Affluence means that one has income which one can dispose of without giving up the necessities of life.

ii. Affluence, then, is the condition in which one is able to assist those who are not able to acquire the necessities of life.

iii. Therefore, the affluent are morally obligated to provide famine relief.

Duty versus Charity - An important underpinning notion of Singer's approach is

the assertion that we cannot mark a distinction between duty and

charity as we normally mark the distinction.

-For Singer, what we traditionally conceive of as charity is, in truth, a matter of duty.

Singer's Argument for Famine Relief

i. Pain, suffering and death as a result of lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.

ii. If it is within our capability to prevent something bad from happening to someone...

... without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant...

...then we morally ought to do it (weak).

Pond Scenario: For example, ruining a pair of shoes or trousers to save a drowning child.

iii. It is, indeed, within our capability to prevent this bad thing from happening.

iv. And we can prevent this bad thing from happening without sacrificing anything morally significant.

v. Therefore, we (society, government and/or individuals) are morally obligated to prevent as much pain, suffering and death [from lack of food, shelter and medical care] without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant.

vi. The primary way to prevent pain and suffering [caused by lack of food, shelter and medical care] without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant is to contribute to famine,