Analogy, Marginality and Action. Peter Singers Famine, Affluence, and Morality Analysis - Essay Example

of Learning: Famine, Affluence, and Morality Key Assumptions Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is another point of view of utilitarianism as a philosophical theory or can be considered a relative of the utilitarian concept. He has numerous assumptions in his essay, which apparently discusses humanity’s duty to help starving people in countries that need help the most. Among his assumptions include our duty to prevent what is bad, and promote what is good. He elaborates this contention by explaining that if we, humans, have the capacity to help other people who are in need without sacrificing some things that are equally important and significant to our lives, then by all means, we are ought to do so. In the fifth paragraph, Singer emphasized that helping starving people is a moral obligation by people, but granted that it does not sacrifice anything that is “comparably” important. For instance, if by donating a hundred dollars in a foundation that feeds starving children and families in Africa would cost the life of your child who also needs the money for her operation, then one will be spared of guilt by keeping the money for his child’s operation instead. In other words, if a person acknowledges he or she can feed a single family in Africa by donating his money allotted for a fancy smart phone, then his action is morally justifiable and is fulfillment of duty. Another important assumption in Singer’s essay follows that proximity and distance are also factors in extending our moral duties to our fellow humans despite the fact that other people around us are not feeling obliged to do so. He emphasized that numbers cannot be used as a plausible excuse for not helping other people who are badly in need because we acknowledge that by donating without considering other people’s interest can actually save a single life or two. Singer’s central premise in his essay is summed up as extending our help to people in dire need, despite our proximity and distance, without sacrificing something that is equally significant. His point was that our morality may somehow explain that it is our moral obligation as human beings living in the same earth to extend our help by not being selfish and materialistic, and not only a show of charitable work because as what he said, people who give to charities are praised, while those who do not are not condemned. In other words, helping starving children, for instance, can well be shown as voluntary and not obligatory. People who choose to buy clothes rather than donating to the children of Africa cannot justify their action because they act in that manner so as to look pleasant and not to protect themselves. The Analogy The last sentence of the fifth paragraph tells us an analogy about a drowning child in a pond and a person happens to witness the child drowning. Singer’s analogy fits perfectly with his main assumption that we ought to help other people in need, despite the inability of other people to see her situation, and without sacrificing something that is comparably significant. Simply saying, in that situation, our clothes do not bear more significance compared to a life that is at risk. In other words, we prevent what is bad (the possible death of the child in the pond) and promote what is good (saving the life of the child). ‘Level of Marginality’ In giving away something to the needy, Singer puts a specific, yet abstract limit as to the amount we are obliged to. He used the phrase “until we reach the level of marginality.” It is like a common version found in the Christian bible that a way to heaven is by abandoning all of one’s properties and wealth and giving them after to the poor. Singer requires “reducing ourselves to the level of marginal utility” (par. 27). In the moderate version of his premise, he does not imply that people ought to live in a level of marginal utility such that their families are likely to suffer in the end, as well. What he stands up for is for people to live only according to their necessities rather than wants. It is a process of gradual reduction of the spirit of consumerism that plagues the middle and upper class societies. People buy what they want and need in an amount more than what they give to starving and helpless fellows. This usual act has been used often by people who are hiding behind the masks of a generous persona. Singer only tries to relate that in order to understand the unfortunate situation of other people, it may seem likely for us to experience how it is to be deprived. However, Singer only wants us to reduce our extreme fascination to things that are of lesser importance compared to the lives that are at risk due to extreme hunger. Praiseworthiness of an Action The latter portion of his essay discusses the praiseworthiness of one’s action that involves the distinction between donating to charities and not donating at all. The society nowadays starts to acknowledge that helping is a moral duty and not merely a display of generosity. However, Singer provides a plausible explanation that giving is a form of charity; hence, it is also not wrong when people do not give at all, or that people who do not donate to charity do not receive condemnation. This can be concretized by saying that donating to the needy is a voluntary action; meaning it is not obligatory and forced that doing the opposite is sanctioned by a social disapproval. Lastly, Singer contends that the world has become smaller; therefore, helping people from the other side of the planet is also possible. However, he believes that as people who live proximal to our needy fellows, we are in a better position to see their needs closer rather than people who live far from them. Our proximity all the more provides us with a valid reason to assist with their needs. It is, however, not an excuse to ignore the situation of poor and starving people farther from us because helping, as an act of morally acceptable act, discriminates no one and no distance. An act of charity is universal in nature. Works Cited Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1.1 (1972): 229-243. Print. Read More