Singer's Second Obligation

In this paper, I will begin my argument with Singer’s two assumptions which lay the foundation of what duties we owe to those who are in great need. I will demonstrate his implications of his assumptions through his obligations and explain his argument for international aid. First, I will set out his first obligation that it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening and draw out on this general principle to show his argument on the unimportance of whether suffering is nearby or far which is his second obligation. Afterwards, I will lay out his third obligation that one must contribute as much as they can to avoid the problems. Alongside his arguments, I will explain Singer’s counter arguments to strengthens his position. To
Especially with our generation producing more waste than ever, it is evident to me that we should be more conservative with our purchasing choices. The only part of his premise that I disagree with is how we should always morally follow it as his obligations means a restraint in our freedom to act. Though I believe people should always act the best they can, I have to consider that others may rather spend their moral beliefs on other situations. Morally, Singer feels that it is wrong for one to not offer help to those who are in need but this may restrict people’s own values and freedom despite how morally good it is to do so. He had made his argument based on mainly relief but there are other problems that people can act upon and his obligation may restrict them from doing so.
Singer’s principle showcase that as individuals, if we came together, we can create a greater impact on the world which I agree would produce a great change in a crisis. He has noted his argument with the detail that in the actual world, there will be no mass movement in favor of more giving. Thus, his principle despite the huge demands is meant to people to follow his principle to give most of what we have/can to famine relief. But it is implied that he does not only want us to acknowledge his premises and wants
have the moral obligation to give far more than we actually do in international aid for relief, Singer provided three obligations to support it. His general principle is used to explain that countries should use their power to prevent something bad from happening. For instance, providing assistance through money means can be seen as a small sacrifice or perhaps none at all since the country is flourishing and has an abundant amount compared to those who don’t. Singer provides two versions of his general principle in order to fill the arguments one may have upon how demanding it may be. One of the version requires no morally significant sacrifice, allowing Singer to show that countries/people can assist without losing anything huge whereas the other version requires more of a person/nation which he favors. He had written about two versions as he feels that people should do what is beyond the call to help but if it causes too much sacrifice to do so, his moderate version can mend the disagreements against the stronger version. His argument causes us to realize we can prevent many situations yet we are still faced with them because not every single person will actually be fulfilling their obligations. This rebuked the counter-argument his obligations raised as only in his idealized world, would his argument be fulfilled. Using counter-arguments that are raised, he was able to strengthen his general