In Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal utility and also differentiate how it pertains to his argument. I will compare how the ideas of duty and charity alter in his suggested world. To conclude, I will provide my own reaction about this problem supporting singer’s argument. Should wealthier nations have a moral duty to relieve poorer nations if a disastrous event were to happen? I think that we all must contribute in times of need even if this means substantially modifying the way in which we live for the objective of assisting other people so long as it doesn't cause us to suffer.…
Studies were able to differentiate between “good” and “bad” governments based on certain characteristics that took in account corruption, democracy, etc. It was weird that in conclusion the type of government in charge of a state had no impact on how well the aid given to them fostered growth. Part of the reason for this conclusion was that aid would sometimes be given simply for political reasons or other less effective long-term means. The takeoffs that Planners push for are also very rare and largely unrealistic. Meanwhile, booming economies like China and India are growing in no part thanks to aid. In a nutshell, Easterly describes just how useless aid actually is. A further problem with giving aid is much of the aid seems to be going toward consumption and not long-term investment. If this is the case, no one wonder aid isn’t sparking growth. Easterly does also ponder if growth would be even worse without aid. Perhaps aid doesn’t help too much, but it is also very possible that without aid, the poor states would be even more devastated. He addresses all parts of the arguments and takes into account multiple opposing views and…
Africa happens to be the poorest country with the highest population growth. Since they are so poor they are in deep poverty since because they don’t have sufficient income. Although conflict and drought are certainly a problem, money is a bigger issue. There is many conflict onto in The United States should sent aid or not over to Africa to help them get out of their poverty or should they do it on their own. The United States should not send money because it is no their problem and also pouring money into a leaky bucket will not solve anything.…
It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each other. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. In Peter Singer's essay "Famine Affluence, and Morality" Peter Singer argues that we ought, morally, to prevent starvation due to famine. Singer begins by saying that assistance has been inadequate as richer countries prioritize development above preventing starvation. Singer then states that "suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad" (404) and assumes that it is uncontroversial enough to be accepted without justification. He then next raises the linked premise that we morally ought to prevent something 'bad' from happening as long as we have the means and it does not entail compromising on anything of 'comparable moral significance', using the analogy of a drowning child and hence assuming the principle _of "_universalizability" (405). As Singer writes, he attempts to justify why he feels that it is within our means to do so without sacrificing anything morally significant, and concludes that we hence morally ought to prevent starvation due to famine.…
Whether in the form of money, training or education. One of the problems wealth nations have with providing aid is it may not get distribute to the people that really need it the most These global governments do not want an educated population for fear of the masses realizing what has been happening to them all their lives. Wealthy nations like to feel like what they are giving is making a difference, but in truth the poor do not see this money. The saying “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer” is an ominous cloud for the poor and it is starting to filter in to the middle class of society. The reality is wealthy countries do not want everyone to be on the same social or economically footing. This would disrupt the hierarchies that have been built up over the decades and the beginning of…
The goal that Peter Singer is trying to convey in his article is that he is trying to convince people that that if famine is so bad(which most will not argue) in a poor country or community then people are morally obligated to do something about it and to either stop it from happening or to prevent it from happening. Singer says “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.”(Singer, 1971) So by him saying this it means that there could be some flaws in the way people will act and think about helping others. People have always been known to help another person or a charity or organization if it is something they can see, feel or touch. Something that is within close proximity to them.…
Peter Singer's article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, presents a strong view on the moral values which people all around the world today are giving to the global famine taking place these days. Singer tries to influence who ever reads this article to take action and provide relief for the increased suffering going on due to famine. In his article, he incorporates arguments to illustrate the moral importance that should be given to the suffering of famine. The majority of the population today view offerings as a good action to do but do not believe it is wrong not to do it. Singer stresses how it is wrong to know such suffering is going on and not do anything about it, regardless of the distance between you and the victim and if anyone else is assisting towards the cause. Although Singer makes some strong points, he also falls weak in a few of his arguments.…
Global Hunger is the most prevalent issue in the modern world. In much of Asia, Africa and other parts of the developing world, people are malnourished and do not have access to sufficient food. From lack of food, children suffer the most with many young people being underweight, having a higher under-five mortality rate and most children in the affected areas being malnourished. Hunger levels in third-world countries has decreased however in war affected countries such as Iraq, hunger has increased severely. Malnourishment effects the body all through a person’s life, from the moment they are born to when they are old, if they survive that long. Life long hunger can increase mortality rate, stunt growth, increase risk of diseases and mental…
Hunger is not just the need to eat; hunger, as the word is used by food and health experts can be defined as the continuing deprivation in a person of the food needed to support a healthy life. The more technical term is under nutrition. Over time, hunger slows physical and mental development in children and leaves them more vulnerable to illness and disease. For example, respiratory and diarrhea infections are common in undernourished children, and even diseases of vitamin A deficiency, which can cause blindness, anemia, caused by iron deficiency and goiter due to iodine deficiency.…
The overpopulation problem is a hot topic in the world. The population growth brings us tremendous pressure because it grows too fast. Also the developing countries and underdeveloped counties have higher population growth rate; for example, India, China, and Indonesia. The daily news updates the information about how people help the poor countries. Are we really helping poor countries? I think no one can exactly answer this question. Garrett Hardin had an unequal opinion comparing with others in 1974. He made the analogy of the rich countries and poor countries. “Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth.” Garrett Hardin argues for a very harsh thesis: we simply should not provide aid to people in poor countries. His argument is consequentiality: he claims that the net result of doing so would be negative. I do not agree with his opinion because of three main points.…
7- Dowdey, Sarah. “How Freegans Work”. Howstuffworks. HowStuffWorks, Inc, 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 14 June 2012. <http://money.howstuffworks.com/freegan.htm>.…
In his Peter Singer’s article, “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he speaks of how he looks at ways one might think about charity and famine relief. Not everyone has accepted his general idea of how a person should act in these situations. I myself only agree with his views at a certain level. I believe that everyone should help others out in a disaster if they have the means available to do so. Singer’s main argument is the lack of food, shelter, and medicine is horrible and that we have the means to prevent it without sacrificing very much. He uses the Bengal Emergency for his example to his argument. He state “that the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way we look at moral issues – 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, 1972). His goal here is to persuade people that everyone, including the government, need to help with famine relief, and how we deal with such disasters now is “morally unjustified”. (Singer, 1972)…
I also believe that rich countries should not help poor countries because the poor countries could end up depending on rich countries for support and not taking care of themselves. Once the rich countries stop supporting the poor countries their economy will go down again. The money usually does not go where the people need it. It usually goes to the government and the people in need do not get any of it. Poor countries are usually poor for a reason. Whether they have no resources, a bad government system, or debt problems. Some poor countries just do not need extra money because it is not spent in the best way.…
One of the strongest reason for people who against the rich countries should help the poor countries is the aid doesn't work. Foreign aid usually considered too much for poor countries, or useless on inability governments. Africa has received over US$1 trillion in international aid over the past 50 years, intended for health care, education, infrastructure and agriculture, among other things. "Between 1970 and 1995 aid to Africa increased rapidly and aid dependency (measured as the aid-to-GDP ratio) stood at nearly 20% in the early 1990s. Measured differently, the mean value of aid as a share of government expenditures in African countries was well above 50% between 1975 and 1995" (Why Aid Doesn't Work). "The total amount of international development aid is now more than $100 billion a year to Africa. In 2008, rich countries gave $119.8 billion in foreign aid. This is over 10% more than in 2007 and is the highest amount ever given" (Statistics on International Development Aid). In the same period, the per capita GDP growth in Africa to reduce, for many years has been negative. Unfortunately, although good intentions from donor countries, the aid work has been useless in against poverty and promote the economic continued growth. The fact is that most African countries are…
The Samaritan dilemma is a dilemma in the act of charity. This was proposed by James M Buchanan. According to this theory, when given charity, a person will act one of the two given ways: using the charity to improve their situation or look for charity as a means of survival. A similar situation arises when a country receives foreign aid. The donor country is faced with the Samaritan dilemma. Will the country receiving the foreign aid act in a way that will improve the situation or will it look at charity as a means of survival? Foreign aid is not always beneficial for developing countries. What is wrong with foreign aid? Studies in the last four decades have shown that the main objective of developmental aid has not been achieved. Of late, ‘development’ –the main goal of aid is notably become ‘sustainable development’ which is a broader concept than just development. In the case of sustainable development, the aid receiver has a bigger role to play than the donor. In such a case, the receivers had a greater responsibility to look after and the authority of the donors over their own aid declined. The poor outcome involved need not be because of conflicts, it can also arise given the preferences of individuals involved and the incentives generated by the donors. Besides this, there are a number o questions that has to be addressed before giving the aid such as: Why is the country poor, what kinds of reforms does it need, what kinds of investments it requires, who are the stake holders and how are they benefitted etc. All these questions will have to be considered by the donor before giving aid.…