, Famine, Affluence and Morality,

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Course Tittle

Date

Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer

Peter Singer, in his writing, “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” presents an argument that individuals have the capability to change the world around them for the better instead of accepting fate. According to the reading, many developed nations like the United States should be willing and prepared to participate in activities that promote prevention or elimination of calamities, famine, or disasters all over the universe. Peter Singer believes that this can be achieved when the U.S., like many developed countries, realizes a clarion demand for moral duty upon them to do so. From Peter Singer’s reading concerning this social problem, he aims to understand concerning famine, affluence, and morality.

Peter Singer’s strongest principle is: “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.” All the way through his writing, Singer presents his perception that we have similar ethical responsibilities to those far away as we do those close to us. He claims that deciding not to send lifesaving cash to starving individuals on the other side of the universe is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save drowning kids because we choose not to muddy our shoes. If we can provide assistance, we must, and any excuse given is hypocrisy. His extreme stand on our ethical responsibilities to others is a powerful call to arms and continues to challenge individual’s attitudes towards poverty. Peter Singer uses an analogy of our duty to save a drowning child in order to assert that it is within our capabilities to prevent something bad from occurring, devoid of sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we have to do so (Singer, 829). Singer applies his conclusion to our obligations to prevent suffering, from either absolute poverty or famine, concluding that ‘there is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance [therefore] we ought to prevent some absolute poverty (Singer, 829).

The writing of Peter Singer presents a stark moral challenge to the traditional concepts of philanthropical giving. In his writing, he commences with a clear assumption to argue the deep conclusion that ‘we have to give money away and it is wrong not to do so’ (Singer, 830). This reading pursues to examine if we ought to accept this assumption by assessing whether objections to the FRA can be ethically justified. He presents two versions of the premise: the strong version, as above, claims we should avert suffering devoid of sacrificing anything of similar ethical importance (Singer, 831), while the weak version claims we should do so, provided that we do not sacrifice ‘something morally significant’ (Singer, 831). The reading approaches this particularly from a humanitarian context where Peter Singer argues that affluent people are morally bound to contribute much more finances to the humanitarian cause than is considered in Western societies. He challenges people to question the common insight that physical distance and the means of using cash reduces our moral duties to help others.

Works Cited

Singer, Peter. “Famine, affluence, and morality.” Doing Ethics. 829- 831.