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 between 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
Cite this document
(“On Famine, Affluence and Morality Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/sociology/70969-on-famine-affluence-and-morality
(On Famine, Affluence and Morality Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words)
“On Famine, Affluence and Morality Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/sociology/70969-on-famine-affluence-and-morality.
Cited: 0 times
The following essay under the title "On Famine, Affluence, and Morality" concerns the article written by Peter Singer that points out the solution to famine is the moral obligation of the wealthy to donate a portion of their belongings to the poor…
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.
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.
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 viewing public also believes that by contributing money and food that it can stop the suffering and save the children. In fact, these assumptions are only partially correct. The causes of famine are far more complex than simply the weather or temporary natural conditions.
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
4 pages (1000 words)Essay
Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you!Try us!
Let us find you another Essay on topic On Famine, Affluence and Morality for FREE!