On Famine, Affluence and Morality - Essay Example

?On Famine, Affluence and Morality Peter Singer’s essay article en d “On Famine, Affluence and Morality” tries to point out the solution of famine is the moral obligation of the wealthy to donate a portion of their belongings to the poor. 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 commit when they do not share their wealth with those in extreme poverty. This would make Singer’s solution rather utilitarian in its moral and ethical approach. Sinnot-Armstrong (2011) posited that “classic utilitarianism is consequentialist as opposed to deontological because of what it denies and it denies that moral rightness depends directly on anything other than consequences, such as whether the agent promised in the past to do the act now.  In the example given in his essay, the poverty in the nation of Bangladesh is so dense in its population that even having a single proper meal is difficult for most people living there. It comes to Singer’s attention that while most of the population in Bangladesh, many countries and people around the world have more than enough of wealth to manage. Singer then comes up with the solution that the people with wealth beyond their means should be morally obliged to give up a portion of their material belongings and give them to other people whose lives are caught up in extreme poverty. This does not mean that the wealthy will lose a significant portion of wealth, but only the amount in which that is too excessive for them to keep or manage. Despite the seemingly well intentioned solution that Singer proposes in his essay article, there are three counter arguments against his point of view. One criticism is that the proposition of Singer is found to be too radical to the current moral standing of society today. Society today would rather outright condemn people who break the moral norms than a state of moral wrong. Singer argues that such moral standing should not to be a justification to not look beyond one’s own social problems, and to be concerned with the moral problems. The matter falls that societies which have more than enough wealth do nothing to help populations which are in abject poverty while knowing something can be done to remedy it. The second objection to Singer’s proposition is that there should be a clear distinction of the act of helping the poor as either charity or duty. This is where the problem of Utilitarianism as a consequentialist form of ethics lies. Alexander and Moore (2007) observed that “according to critics, for consequentialists, there is no realm of moral permissions, no realm of going beyond one's moral duty (supererogation), no realm of moral indifference, and all acts are seemingly either required or forbidden”. It would be viewed as ethically problematic to force the wealthy individuals to give up some of their wealth against their will, regardless how noble the intentions are. However, Singer argues that an individual should always to do whatever would avert the greatest amount of bad from happening, unless one could only prevent this bad by doing something that is wrong in itself. Singer does not suggest that a person can put off people from hunger but only by murder or theft, he or she should do so. Singer does not go to the length to assert any moral standards as absolutely right and obligatory but merely sets the issue of doing wrong that good may result from it. The last objection to Singer’s proposition in his essay article is the problem on how much should the wealthier people of society give away to those very much less fortunate. It would seem rather unfair that even though some people are wealthy, they would lose a significant portion to those who are in serious lack. What Singer suggests is that those with more wealth should contribute enough in a sense they give away an essential amount of their excess wealth without having to feel any significant loss to their own welfare. At this point, Singer identifies how the concept of marginal utility is put into play. Marginal utility the level by which giving more would result to suffering towards one’s self and those under one’s responsibility. Singer argues that the act of providing aid to the impoverished is not equated to marginal utility. It is to Singer’s proposition that the act of contributing should be enough to help those in need without causing self detriment. This leads to the question whether giving aid to the impoverished people in the world should be considered an act of charity or a social duty by those better off in life. Giving aid to the poor is an act of charity but the act of giving should not be done with forceful demand or obligation. However, what Singer is trying to point out is that wealthier individuals and societies ought to have the conscious effort to help those in need, especially those with a staggering excess in wealth. This is where individuals should view, in their own accord, the moral duty to help those less fortunate from the moral evils of suffering such as starvation and poverty. This may not solve the inherent causes of the problem, like bad government, agricultural failures and so on and so forth, but it would help alleviate those in pain of hunger and despondence from any further suffering due to their plight. In every sense, I personally agree with the stand of Singer in his article’s proposition on the grounds of virtue ethics. I believe in the archaic adage or proverb “do unto others as they want to be done unto you”. Virtue ethics believes that one should do to help others in need. As Hursthouse (2012) pointed out, “the concept of a virtue is the concept of something that makes its possessor good: a virtuous person is a morally good, excellent or admirable person who acts and feels well, rightly, as she should”. With this in mind, I would consider and apply Aristotle’s concept of the Golden Mean in this ethical matter. The Golden Mean states that the virtue of happiness is achieved by living life between having too much and too less. There is suffering when having less than necessary, which leads to poverty. There is also suffering for having things in excess, which mean gluttony. I believe that instead of hording or wasting the excesses they have, the extremely wealthy should give an amount of their resources to those who literally have nothing to live with. It is ridiculous to find that a single millionaire can own ten cars for himself while a beggar only has a wooden box to keep some leftover meat bones as a meal. In a sense, it really is not fair. References Alexander, L. & Moore, M. (2008). Deontological ethics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue ethics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2011). Consequentialism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ Read More