This person looks homeless and near starvation. More essays like this: One should do whatever works best for them. One must contribute much as they possibly can to avoid the problems of death and suffering in disturbed populations.
Singer gives three counter-arguments that explain his ideas on the fact for his moral reasoning.
As we go about our daily business, living our comfortable lives, millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of children throughout the world, are suffering and dying. Charities have specific people that they help; they are known to help those in need and not just beggars.
To accommodate a duty on someone with little or no wealth to a famine society would place our town and cities in the same dilemma. This is a reason why I think it is better to give to a charity.
Singer thinks that we, as a society, have done little to help those in need and could actually contribute more.
Singer uses the example with the child drowning in a shallow pond again, at this time he is not the only person near the pond and sees the child.
One person might think that saving his clothes from getting muddy is morally significant, while other might think that being on time, for example, for a job interview and not saving a child is morally significant. It is not our moral beliefs to judge one for what they have or ask for in the time of need.
The final and third counter-argument is that Singer question exactly how much we should be giving away.
Singer is not saying merely that it would be a good or charitable thing to relieve famine, although, of course, he believes that it would be a good thing. Duties on the other hand rise up from specific obligations and are things in which are told to us what we must do.
It is wrong not to contribute to famine relief.
However, the first individual looks like they just got paid and wants attention or to see who would exactly help them, they want to feed off others than spend their own money.
Singer also writes that if we changed the Pond Case so that there were twenty people passing by, each of them would still be morally obligated to save the child, regardless of what the others did.
Singer states three obligations that would help the Bengal region through the means of a wealthy person, and those individuals living life on a day-to-day basis. Singer also gives two objections. And the same is for people starving in Bengal.
He is going beyond that. Charity is spread abroad, whereas in duty is obtain from within. In this statement, he questions our ideas and thoughts on equality towards helping those to prevent bad things from happening to them or ourselves.
Both individuals also could have been in the same position, and one just had the benefits to obtain clothes and other needs from a charity. He states that the famine relief is in a more critical condition instead of the purchase of clothes, that one does not need.
If someone can prevent something bad from happening without giving up something of equal importance, then they should.
One should sacrifice their wants rather their needs, marginal utility. What matters is that each of us can minimize the effects of the famines that are now occurring and can take steps to prevent those that might occur. Singer also argues that if he is unable to consider the needs of the people in Bengal that his money is not going to do a great deal for the people nutritional, medical, and dwelling needs.
Singer also uses the example if everyone gave X amount of money to save the famine of the Bengal society. I think that Singer makes us all think what kind of lives we are living, and re-evaluate our priorities in lives ad well. Whether it be a distance of 20 feet, 20 yards, or 20 miles makes no moral differences.
The second individual is dressed in raggedy unclean clothes, no shoes, no jewelry, no cell phone, and of course has a bad odor from being untidy. Sacrificing the purchase of clothes would not be a bad thing, however, the sacrifice of hunger in a starving nation or town would be devastating.Outline of PETER SINGER: “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Singer’s main argument: 1.
Lack of food & shelter & medicine is bad. In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" Peter Singer argues that affluent individuals, in fact, almost all of us are living deeply immoral lives by not.
In the Peter Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” he discusses the way that people should take moral in their help towards the support of the Bengal famine crisis. Singer states three obligations that would help the Bengal region through the means of a wealthy person, and those individuals living life on a day-to-day basis.
Free Essay: Famine, Affluence, and Morality PHI Mind and Machine August 19, In this article Peter Singer’s goal is to shed light and bring awareness. Created Date: 9/9/ PM.
Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is an interesting short collection of papers. The paper which provides the title of the book was written over forty year ago during an all too typical refugee crisis in a remote corner of the world/5(4).Download