Peter Singer - Famine Affluence, And Morality - Assignment Example

 a) Explain Singer’s goal in this article, and then present his argument in relation to this issue. The key goal and function of the article is to give the affluent people a reason of optimism and belief so that they can have the moral obligation to the society and donate some of their vast resources, so that they can be used for humanitarian causes (Singer, 1972). Peter believes that affluent people who reside in the developed world who have at their disposal enormous wealth have a moral obligation to donate some of their enormous wealth and resources to numerous poor people living in the third world countries. This sole aim of the paper is derived from two principles which are clearly stated by (Singer, 1972). That first principle is that death and suffering as result of the shortage of shelter, food, and medical attention are bad. The other principle is that if it is in our power and ability to put to an end these bad things and suffering of the people from occurring, without sacrificing anything of equivalent moral significance, then we ought to honorably do it, as stated by (Singer, 1972) All these arguments put forward by Singer were to encourage most of the affluent countries to give more of their resources to the unfortunate than they are doing. This would help a great deal in dealing with some of the calamities such as famine and disaster. b) Explain three counter-arguments to Singer’s position that he addresses in the article, and then indicate Singer’s responses to those counter-arguments One of the counter-arguments presented by (Singer, 1972) is the example of the drowning child, as it is only one person who can help out at that instance. In the case of disaster relief, there are a multitude of people who can help out. (Singer, 1972) replies to this by claiming that it does not matter morally to the question, how many people could help out, what matters is the ability of individuals to take up the moral obligation responsibility. Failure of anyone to act in a disastrous situation would be the failure of all. Thinking that others could help out, does not in any way, lessen the responsibility. If one person takes on the responsibility, the obligation of the others people lapse. One of the counter arguments is the example given about the child. The child is in need of help and what (Singer, 1972) ponders is whether the child is the responsibility of the people around or other people around the globe? This is an indication on how the poor people around the globe are spatially distant and far away. Leaving the child without any help could lead to it drowning; however in many scenarios donating to the relief agencies could help in the preventions of deaths occurring in the future. (Singer, 1972) then replies to this by claiming that mere distance in space and distance in time are in and they should be considering in determining what people ought to do. It can’t be deemed less wrong to kill a nonthreatening innocent person if the bullet is shot from a long or short distance so as to kill the victim. Another counter-argument presented is the scenario presented about the occurrence of a famine and some of the following situations hold: if all the people contributed an amount equivalent to ten dollars it would contribute enough resources to avert the famine and save all the people. Does it then occur to an individual that they should not give more than ten dollars? This would mean that an individual does not have the obligation to give more than ten dollars. (Singer, 1972) then counters this by stating that this reasoning is faulty. The argument would only be correct if the conclusion was arrived at hypothetically. If everybody in circumstances exactly comparable to those I face gave ten dollars, I would have no responsibility to give more than ten dollars. But what it would be right for me to doing nonfactual, hypothetical or imaginary circumstances does not determine what it is right for me to do in actual circumstances. c) Define Singer’s concept of marginal utility and identity how it relates to this argument The marginal utility of any good or service diminishes just as its quantity progressively increases as illustrated by (Hume, 1999). With the abundance of any good or service, it results in little additional benefit which would be acquired if it was only just as little. This principle is applied by Singer as he views that the abundant resources held by other people would only be beneficial to the needy. The little bits of the vast resources which are not needed by the rich would be of much benefit to the needy in the society as it would increase their happiness. d) Compare how the ideas of duty and charity change in Singer's proposed world? The idea of duty and charity is changed as it is made a moral obligation for the affluent people to help out the poor in the society. The moral obligation makes it a duty as it is seen as their responsibility to help out the poor. This is an indication that Singer expects all the people to give back to the society not because they feel like giving back to the society but because it is their duty and responsibility. Charity is all concerned with what an individual feels he is able to give back to the society in helping the needy people. To Singer charity is not acceptable in the society as he expects that each individual has a duty to the society due to their moral obligation. e) Personal Response to Singer The society and community should constantly be reminded of their moral obligation to the other unfortunate members as elaborated by (Singer, 1972). The affluent people should therefore channel most of their resources in ensuring that they help out in the situations of famine and disaster. All this will ensure that there is no suffering as every individual will have responded to their moral obligation. However, the affluent people should not be pressurized to doing so as so that they do not sacrifice anything which is morally significant. References Hume, D. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Edited by Tom L. Beauchamp. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999 Singer, P. ‘‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality,’’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(1972), pp. 229– 243. Read More