Famine Affluence And Morality Peter Singer Summary
Jenny Pierce
Prof. Duffy
ENC 1101
1/25/2010
Famine, Affluence, and Morality In his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality“, Peter Singer says that humans have an obligation to the poor and starving; based on the assumption that suffering and starvation is bad. The assumption, that there is something morally wrong with having human beings starved to death should make one question whether they have a duty to the poor. Peter examines whether an affluent society like ours has any moral obligation to the poor in this world. In the article Peter said "India needs a minimum of $300,000,000 in assistance from other countries to maintain the refuges. If India doesn't receive this support they will be forced to let them starve or tap into …show more content…
their own funds which their own people will starve more in the future."(403).
I believe in Peter Singers argument. Instead of buying clothes for keeping us warm; we buy it mostly for fashion.
We all know that the clothes hanging in our closets that are collecting dust can still be worn and is in perfect condition but no, we continue to spend money on accessories we don't need instead of donating the money to a Famine charity. " 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."(404). The problem is that no one cares. As long as it doesn't "effect" us we will turn our backs on the issues of others that need our support the most. Our legal system supports Singer’s opponent. It enforces violations of general duties, but only sometimes enforces violations of specific duties. You can be arrested for murder, but you can’t be arrested for not giving to charity. You can be arrested for breaking a promise only in very specific cases and usually not for purely family matters. Adult children are not legally bound to care for their aged parents. No one is legally bound to intervene or take special action on behalf of another unless a specific contract has been made. I’m not even legally obligated to call the police if I witness a crime. We have to be and act responsibly. What I mean is that we must solve the issue of
over population. The more people we have on this planet the more recourse is being consumed to nurture them. Especially in third world countries such as Africa and India where there isn't a neighborhood grocery store or pharmacy in every 5 miles of their home. There are still people till this day that there way of currency is threw common things such as rice cattle and land. One thing affects another. I'm pretty sure if our government wasn't in dept we would help India and their Famine issue as I mentioned earlier. The pros are that you help to save countless of lives of men, women, and even children; and the cons are you won't get a new outfit to go out in for some useless event. Pretty Self explanatory on what is more important. Singer is willing to be flexible about what action you take; it doesn't matter for his argument.
Prof. Duffy
ENC 1101
1/25/2010
Famine, Affluence, and Morality In his article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality“, Peter Singer says that humans have an obligation to the poor and starving; based on the assumption that suffering and starvation is bad. The assumption, that there is something morally wrong with having human beings starved to death should make one question whether they have a duty to the poor. Peter examines whether an affluent society like ours has any moral obligation to the poor in this world. In the article Peter said "India needs a minimum of $300,000,000 in assistance from other countries to maintain the refuges. If India doesn't receive this support they will be forced to let them starve or tap into …show more content…
their own funds which their own people will starve more in the future."(403).
I believe in Peter Singers argument. Instead of buying clothes for keeping us warm; we buy it mostly for fashion.
We all know that the clothes hanging in our closets that are collecting dust can still be worn and is in perfect condition but no, we continue to spend money on accessories we don't need instead of donating the money to a Famine charity. " 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."(404). The problem is that no one cares. As long as it doesn't "effect" us we will turn our backs on the issues of others that need our support the most. Our legal system supports Singer’s opponent. It enforces violations of general duties, but only sometimes enforces violations of specific duties. You can be arrested for murder, but you can’t be arrested for not giving to charity. You can be arrested for breaking a promise only in very specific cases and usually not for purely family matters. Adult children are not legally bound to care for their aged parents. No one is legally bound to intervene or take special action on behalf of another unless a specific contract has been made. I’m not even legally obligated to call the police if I witness a crime. We have to be and act responsibly. What I mean is that we must solve the issue of
over population. The more people we have on this planet the more recourse is being consumed to nurture them. Especially in third world countries such as Africa and India where there isn't a neighborhood grocery store or pharmacy in every 5 miles of their home. There are still people till this day that there way of currency is threw common things such as rice cattle and land. One thing affects another. I'm pretty sure if our government wasn't in dept we would help India and their Famine issue as I mentioned earlier. The pros are that you help to save countless of lives of men, women, and even children; and the cons are you won't get a new outfit to go out in for some useless event. Pretty Self explanatory on what is more important. Singer is willing to be flexible about what action you take; it doesn't matter for his argument.