Singer's 'Famine, Affluence And Morality'
In this paper I will argue that we, citizens in rich countries, have a moral obligation to donate most of our wealth to poor countries. In “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Singer, a utilitarian, argues, “The way people in relatively rich 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”. (230).“Suffering and death from the lack of food, shelter and, medical care are bad”. (231) One should help others, without sacrificing anything of comparable importance. Giving money to worldwide aid will not cause people to be sacrificing anything of similar
…show more content…
(231) To further support this opinion, Singer gives an example of a situation in which a person sees a child drowning in a pond and whether they decide to save the child or make someone else do it. In Singer’s perspective, the person ought to save the child, while getting their clothes muddy, which isn’t as significant, compared to the child’s life. (231) Therefore, if a human being is physically near us and can use our assistance, we ought morally to help them. …show more content…
For example, the drowning child situation teaches people to help because it’s morally required. The implication of Singer’s principle is that there are millions of other people in the same situation as the Bengali refugees which doesn’t make them considerably different from a situation in which Singer’s the only person who can avoid something horrible from taking place.
So, how much exactly are we supposed to contribute to the poor? Singer states, “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility-that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” (241) We ought to give as much as we can without thereby causing us suffering such as financial difficulties. I agree with Singer’s conclusion and would help others if I can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of moral significance. Most people in affluent have become a much more self-centered group, ignoring the less fortunate people not just in Bengal but also in other poor
(231) To further support this opinion, Singer gives an example of a situation in which a person sees a child drowning in a pond and whether they decide to save the child or make someone else do it. In Singer’s perspective, the person ought to save the child, while getting their clothes muddy, which isn’t as significant, compared to the child’s life. (231) Therefore, if a human being is physically near us and can use our assistance, we ought morally to help them. …show more content…
For example, the drowning child situation teaches people to help because it’s morally required. The implication of Singer’s principle is that there are millions of other people in the same situation as the Bengali refugees which doesn’t make them considerably different from a situation in which Singer’s the only person who can avoid something horrible from taking place.
So, how much exactly are we supposed to contribute to the poor? Singer states, “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility-that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift.” (241) We ought to give as much as we can without thereby causing us suffering such as financial difficulties. I agree with Singer’s conclusion and would help others if I can prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of moral significance. Most people in affluent have become a much more self-centered group, ignoring the less fortunate people not just in Bengal but also in other poor