Philosophical Paper on morality and world hunger - Essay Example

However, as John Arthurs criticism of Singer states “the moral code it is rational for us to support must be practical; it must actually work” (Timmons 461). Singer and Arthur do not address the reality of world hunger to the average person. How can a person make a more moral choice, if the hunger is not real to them? On the other hand, the issue of world hunger might seem so helpless that most people do not believe it is ‘in our power to prevent’ the inevitable starvation of people in third world countries.

In the end, Singer’s position is too self righteous and not an adequate code for an imperfect world. The acceptance of the greater moral evil principle would have radical implications for morality. Singer’s principle is one that many have argued without action for years. Many parents have scolded their children into eating their food by shaming them with ‘many children go to bed hungry’ or ‘children in Africa don’t get enough to eat’. The majority of Americans, with the exception of the extremely poor, could be considered indulgent and spoiled when comparing them with poorer third world countries.

In America, Europe, and other advanced countries starvation is not a problem. Not only is starvation not a problem, obesity has become prevalent. This could be considered the result of not doing the morally right thing, if Singer’s principle is the correct path to take. Singer states “if it is in our power to prevent something [very] bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought morally, to do it” (Timmons 454). If this statement is true, world hunger should no longer exist.

Every American, European, and so forth would send money, help, or even volunteer in countries where starvation existed. Then the question would become how much an individual would give to charity? Would ten percent, twenty percent, or even all of their income over necessities be