The same feeling of caring and helping should be applied to people from all over the world. The second reason for agreeing with Singer is the fact that ‘developed countries’ have resources to help the hungry. I agree with Singer’s point that instead of terming the act of helping famine victim as a ‘charitable act’, it should be termed as ‘moral obligation’ (Singer 236). So much of food is wasted and thrown away by common people. One can easily feed hundreds of starving people with the amount of the left-over food by people in a developed nation. Also, people make choices regarding the food items and quality. This shows that there is more than enough amount of food related items available in a country. Hence, when a country has the storage of food even after feeding its citizens sufficiently, then it becomes amoral obligation of that nation, or people of that nation, to help minimize the world hunger. Instead of wasting food or throwing away the edible parts just because they are not needed for a particular dish, it should be given to people who need it. No sane human being will choose to throw food in waste bin rather than giving it to a person who is starving to death. Hence, I agree with Singer that minimizing world hunger is a moral obligation of human beings. ...
Singer’s argument is convincing as he has pointed out to the fact that richer nations have the capacity to reduce the suffering of famine victims in other countries without causing any reduction in the supply of resources to its own people (Singer 229). He has also stated that at the individual level also, common people have failed to raise their voice to help famine victims (Singer 229). Singer is convincing as he has exposed the selfish attitude of people and their lack of empathy towards the needy. From his argument, it becomes clear that proving money is not the only way one can help the famine victims. They can help the famine victims by holding demonstrations on the street to force the government to take right decisions. They can encourage people to help the victims by conduct awareness campaigns to let them know about the inhuman conditions in which the victims are living. As Singer says, they can write to responsible government officials, hold symbolic fasts and donate whatever is essential for the survival of the victims (Singer 229). His argument shows that people have aced irresponsibly and immaturely. Moreover, Singer’s argument is strengthened by the fact that what is needed to help the victims is nothing more than just a little awareness and desire to help the needy. By focusing on the people’s and nation’s lack of desire to help the victims, and irresponsibility towards the world citizenship despite of having the resources to help, Singer convinces the reader that individuals and nations have failed on the level of humanity. Answer C Singer’s argument can be objected on the point that being wealthy is not crime. Singer has pointed a finger towards wealthy people by saying that instead of choosing to help the famine victims, they
Answer A Yes. I agree with Singer’s conclusion that we personally have a moral obligation to help minimize world hunger. There are various reasons for agreeing with Singer. The first reason is the duty towards humanity. Even though the world is divided by national boundaries, ethnicity, culture, language etc., all the people in the world are same on the level of humanity…
The situation he describes is one that could be told forty years later in the same words and same context, which is to state that little has changed in bridging the gap between the world’s poorest people and the richest societies economically, or even with regard to the most basic aspects of standard of living such as adequate food, shelter, and health care.
In his article, Singer’s primary point is that, if an individual can use his or her wealth to diminish social problems such as poverty without any considerable lessening in his or her welfare others, it would be considered not morally right to do nothing about the problem. In Singer’s point of view, there is a moral evil which affluent individuals.
The article seems to suggest that we are responsible for the woes that have befallen the poor and the refugees in the camps. Peter Singer is therefore suggesting that it should be our responsibility and an obligation to get those entangled in unfortunate circumstances out of it (Singer, 1972).
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.
The core thesis of Singer’s work is hinged on four suppositions: (1) "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad" (2) "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it", (3) "It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away", and (4) "The principle makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position".
In third world countries, adequate services and infrastructure are not readily available. Disaster response is also limited, reducing the countries’ ability to provide for its people. Contributing towards these eventualities is considered charity, which means the voluntary diversion of funds towards such assistance.
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).
Mr. Singer argues that, in no uncertain terms, the world is not doing enough to help those that need it, and in fact those that can help have a moral obligation to do so. Mr. Hardin argues that while help is certainly possible for those that need it, the likelihood of
The core thesis of Singer’s work is hinged on four suppositions: (1) "Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad" (2) "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of
However, this amount is very little compared to the amount they spend on projects that they could otherwise survive without. Singer notes great infrastructural developments and transportation projects in first world
6 pages (1500 words)Essay
Hire a pro to write a paper under your requirements!
Win a special DISCOUNT!
Put in your e-mail and click the button with your lucky finger
Apply my DISCOUNT
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Famine, Affluence, and Morality for FREE!