The Concept of Individuals Responsibility To other Members of Their Community by Peter Singer - Essay Example

Famine, Affluence and Morality The argument d by the of “Family, affluence and morality” Peter Singer can besaid to be one that entails two sides and thus from a utilitarian point of view there are those who would agree with his stance as well as those who would not. The main foundation of the argument basically states that individuals are able to do more than they are currently doing to help those in need. Countries that can be said to contribute largely to refugee funds such as Britain and Australia also spend more than they donate to these causes on infrastructure such as a new transport system or Opera house (Singer). By taking a look at the donations from such an angle these countries generosity can be said to take a drastic dive when compared to their other expenses. One could say that these governments care more about their transport system for example than they do about the millions of lives that they could affect with such money (Singer). However, in realistic terms especially from an economic point of view, it is necessary that a government invests in projects that will bring back financial returns in a bid to provide a better stable economy from which they can operate from. Without these investments, they would not be able to donate any money to the causes that they provide funding for. Taking a look at the stance brought about by Singer and the economic defense of such actions by the governments it can be said that two clear sides emerge from this argument with each supporting the opposing sides. A good strategy to determine whether Singer was right in his evaluation of an individual’s responsibility to other members of their community as well as a government’s responsibility to society is by studying the underlying factors that would more or less govern the potential results of what certain actions may bring. This can be done by setting a choice of two potential paths that a society can take and the results that these two paths are most likely to yield. By doing this, it can be said that the path that leads to the best results will be the better option. Taking a look at the basis of the argument taken by Singer it can be said that from an overall perspective he has a good point and if his plan was to be placed perfectly into action there could be a high chance of success should everyone play their part. This is to say that the effect should take place from the grassroots and make its way up to the top echelons of government. This would mean that a regular individual would begin to take more interest in the plight of refugees and ensuring that they are doing everything in their power to improve their conditions. This would include donating more money to affiliated organizations, taking a political interest in the policies as well as changing their lifestyle to a more giving and generous one (Singer). The government on the other hand would divert more of their funds towards helping these causes and concentrate more on the wellbeing of these individuals rather than the other projects they have lined up (Singer). The government in this case would take the stance that the improvement of human life is more important than other issues. If this was to happen exactly as stated there could be a chance that causes such as the wellbeing of refugees will get the attention it deserves and as a result their plight may be significantly reduce as more people take action on the matter. However, this would need the support and co operation of all the people and bodies involved which would also include a somewhat drastic in some change in mindset which is something that would not happen overnight. People would need to be willing to change their ways and adopt a giving policy that may have diminished over the years thanks to the promotion of capitalist values. The changes entailed could also bring about negative aspects as well as positive ones, which is something that should be taken into consideration. As much as helping others and ensuring that the needy are well taken care of it is essential to remember that this should not interrupt the normal day to day activities that take place as well as this could lead to a slow down in the regions economic progress and this would in turn affect the financial capabilities of both the government as well as lone individuals to help those they were rooting for. Suggestions have been made such as having individuals picket and hold demonstrations in support of better refugee support (Singer), but such actions also disrupt the work that is going on around the area and may serve as an inconvenience to some. On a personal basis, this may also affect one’s view of the cause that they are fighting for. When dealing with direct government involvement it should be mentioned that there are a number of responsibilities that an elected body has and thus it cannot fully concentrate on one topic while perhaps completely ignoring another as a result. The issue of ensuring that refugees are well taken care of for example cannot overshadow other important matters as well such as the financial stability of the region. The best way to ensure that the government is in a position to help others is to ensure that it is in a stable economic position itself. In conclusion, it can be said that there are a few utilitarian individuals who would disagree with the stance that Peter Singer has taken based on the fact that individuals and other bodies cannot be expected to give more than they able to. Despite comparing their generosity with other investments it should be noted that it is these same investments that are more likely to provide the financial stability for them to continue their generous donations. A change in the individual mindset will also take time to accomplish and thus cannot be expected to take effect overnight. References Singer Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 229-243 [revised edition], 1972. Read More