Famine Affluence And Morality Summary
Famine, Affluence, and Morality
PHI 208
Famine, Affluence, and Morality In the article, Peter Singer’s purpose is to draw attention and bring apprehension to the fashion the world’s people are being tormented directly to natural disasters and poverty. He also analyzes the amount of people struggling to survive in account to living under the poverty line, a few on a single dollar a day. Singer constructs the point that we need to be doing a greater job at helping those not in the status of being able to help themselves. By using Bengal as an example of how the countries that are rich respond to a disaster, Singer is capable of proving his point (Singer, 1972). Singer concentrates on the issues of why people refuse to donate. He believes that some folks have the assumption that the government has the responsibility of providing aid to those who are in need. Later he states that it is a collective effort between us, the citizens and the government to rescue the ones who are suffering. We reside in an egocentric society that has a belief in which we should not worry about others and take care of self. Reliance on aid is one of the reasons why people do not donate, because they believe the society in need will become dependent on that service …show more content…
If all would adopt this, there would certainly be more than enough in store to benefit refugees, and a few sacrifices will have been unnecessary. In theory, if everyone does what is needed, the effect will not be as great as if less was done. Singer’s examinations most closely act in accordance with those of utilitarianism, which is a moral theory according to that of welfare being the fundamental human good. This Welfare can be referred to the happiness or well-being of individuals (Utilitarianism,
PHI 208
Famine, Affluence, and Morality In the article, Peter Singer’s purpose is to draw attention and bring apprehension to the fashion the world’s people are being tormented directly to natural disasters and poverty. He also analyzes the amount of people struggling to survive in account to living under the poverty line, a few on a single dollar a day. Singer constructs the point that we need to be doing a greater job at helping those not in the status of being able to help themselves. By using Bengal as an example of how the countries that are rich respond to a disaster, Singer is capable of proving his point (Singer, 1972). Singer concentrates on the issues of why people refuse to donate. He believes that some folks have the assumption that the government has the responsibility of providing aid to those who are in need. Later he states that it is a collective effort between us, the citizens and the government to rescue the ones who are suffering. We reside in an egocentric society that has a belief in which we should not worry about others and take care of self. Reliance on aid is one of the reasons why people do not donate, because they believe the society in need will become dependent on that service …show more content…
If all would adopt this, there would certainly be more than enough in store to benefit refugees, and a few sacrifices will have been unnecessary. In theory, if everyone does what is needed, the effect will not be as great as if less was done. Singer’s examinations most closely act in accordance with those of utilitarianism, which is a moral theory according to that of welfare being the fundamental human good. This Welfare can be referred to the happiness or well-being of individuals (Utilitarianism,