This person looks homeless and near starvation. Singer rejects the distinction between the obligatory and the supererogatory, and he is claiming that there is no line between justice and charity.
It is wrong not to contribute to famine relief. He states that the famine relief is in a more critical condition instead of the purchase of clothes, that one does not need. In this statement, he questions our ideas and thoughts on equality towards helping those to prevent bad things from happening to them or ourselves.
He is trying to change our thinking and behavior toward victims of famine. One should sacrifice their wants rather their needs, marginal utility. Singer thinks that we, as a society, have done little to help those in need and could actually contribute more.
Duties on the other hand rise up from specific obligations and are things in which are told to us what we must do. Singer replies that the problem with this is that some people think Famine affluence and morality article peter singer enough funds have been giving to the needs of hunger, shelter, and medical care to the famine crisis, in this aspect not all people would give, and the country would still remain as it is.
The second individual is dressed in raggedy unclean clothes, no shoes, no jewelry, no cell phone, and of course has a bad odor from being untidy.
One should do whatever works best for them. He weighs the thoughts whether if it was worse if his clothes got wet and dirty or the death of the child. I suggest that one should give to a charity because it allows them to give what they can afford.
Another objection one might raise is vagueness. This is a reason why I think it is better to give to a charity.
Singer gives three counter-arguments that explain his ideas on the fact for his moral reasoning. Today, with the economic crisis of the world, it is hard for most middle class families to survive from check to check; if that at all.
Situation with the drowning child in a pond is similar to the situation that famine stricken children are in. To accommodate a duty on someone with little or no wealth to a famine society would place our town and cities in the same dilemma.
Singer believes, however, that it is a moral obligation to relieve famine. More essays like this: Charities have specific people that they help; they are known to help those in need and not just beggars. The moral of this judge no one, and do the deed yourself.
One person might think that saving his clothes from getting muddy is morally significant, while other might think that being on time, for example, for a job interview and not saving a child is morally significant.
It is more apt that people would help the second individual, because of their looks and smell; you can see that this person has gone without food for days and a bath for weeks. What matters is that each of us can minimize the effects of the famines that are now occurring and can take steps to prevent those that might occur.
No matter the distance one should help those in need, if anything at all, like the surplus of food in the pantry unlike by family members, clothes that are too big or too small, and sometimes money matters.
The final and third counter-argument is that Singer question exactly how much we should be giving away. Singer also uses the example if everyone gave X amount of money to save the famine of the Bengal society.
Both individuals also could have been in the same position, and one just had the benefits to obtain clothes and other needs from a charity. Singer uses the example with the child drowning in a shallow pond again, at this time he is not the only person near the pond and sees the child.
Giving until you reach your marginal utility is only required. I think that Singer makes us all think what kind of lives we are living, and re-evaluate our priorities in lives ad well.
However, the first individual looks like they just got paid and wants attention or to see who would exactly help them, they want to feed off others than spend their own money.
An example Singer uses is that one should not go out and buy expensive clothes just to keep up with society when you already have a vast amount of clothes in your closet. In this counter-argument, Singer talks of giving until one reaches marginal utility; or in the case where suffering would have greatly increased or decreased in his self, if he gave more than one can afford to give.
He is going beyond that. Singer is not saying merely that it would be a good or charitable thing to relieve famine, although, of course, he believes that it would be a good thing.
Whether it be a distance of 20 feet, 20 yards, or 20 miles makes no moral differences. If someone can prevent something bad from happening without giving up something of equal importance, then they should.
This suggests that famine relief belongs on the justice side of the line rather than, as most people think, on the charity side. One thinks that it is easier to help people in need that are closer in distance than those that are far away. It is not our moral beliefs to judge one for what they have or ask for in the time of need.
He is saying that it is obligatory and morality requires it.1 Blackboard Notes on Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Imagine that you were converted to utilitarianism today and resolved to live according to. Famine, Affluence, and Morality - Kindle edition by Peter Singer, Bill and Melinda Gates.
Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading Famine, Affluence, /5(4).
Famine, Affluence, and Morality – Peter Singer. In this article, Singer addresses the question of what duties, if any, we owe to those who are in great need.
Free Essay: Famine, Affluence, and Morality PHI Mind and Machine August 19, In this article Peter Singer’s goal is to shed light and bring awareness. PHI HE 1 Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer The Elements of Reason #8 1.
Use two or three sentences to state the main purpose or argument in this article. In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Peter Singer argues that affluent individuals, in fact, almost all of us are living deeply immoral lives by not.Download