We should according to peter be ashamed of our self and we should be guilty for our decision not to help those in the refugees’ camps, who are dying of hunger and due to lack of shelter and medication (Singer, 1972). According to him it should be good to help them and also not good not to help them. People who then don’t contribute toward assisting the unfortunate in the society should be condemned. Singer is actually right that we have an obligation to help minimize world hunger. This is because those trapped in such situations is not by their own making. Those in Bengal if we don’t rise to the occasion they will just be wiped with hunger (Singer, 1972). This situation is really not inevitable because if we decide to give towards a project to get the camp closed then in matter of months the problem will have been solved. We have therefore never given much attention to the magnitude of the situation at the ground. We have richer nations that have the capacity to bring this situation to an end (Singer, 1972). They are making millions of money and channeling towards research and development while turning a blind eye to human beings dying in refugees’ camps. ...
We can therefore help to raise many so that India can not divert resources allocated for development to feeding refugees because this will cause another similar problem in the future. Al the governments of the world are aware of this situation in India and other parts of the world and therefore can not take refuge in pretence of not having been aware of it. Because the governments are therefore aware of this they should contribute towards it so that the blight of the refugees can be gathered for (Singer, 1972). The individuals are also aware of this and it is therefore immoral not to help those suffering yet you have information of their blight. B The most compelling part of singers’ argument is the fact that we should prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing something else of same importance (Singer, 1972). This is rather compelling because it is practical and real that we can be able to get rid of this suffering in the refugees and at the same time we will not have created other such situations which means that such situations are brought to an end and totally gotten rid of. It is therefore not so much demanding to do so because we are only required to stop what is bad and no further demanded from us to promote good. If we therefore contribute to help those in refugee camp by giving money that we earn we will have helped them get out of the situation and at the same time we will have but ourselves in the same circumstance as that of the refugees. C Despite singers’ insightful argument in favor of moral obligation to get rid of hunger in the world, there are also enough reasons not to believe so. It can not be argued that
Name: Course: College: Tutor: Date: A The article by Peter Singer is very insightful at the same time provoking. The article is insightful and suggestive of new perspectives. The article mostly dwells on the way we have been wrong by not offering a helping hand to the lesser amongst us…
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.
Even though people are born in different countries and speak different languages, they belong to one race and that is ‘humanity.’ If you have a relative or a friend who is suffering from starvation, then you will definitely help him by providing food as long as you have enough resources.
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!