bs outline paper2 - In his article, Famine, Affluence, and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In his article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer holds that each of us (the relatively well-off in affluent nations) has a moral obligation to give a portion of our resources to alleviate the suffering and death of others. One might immediately agree with this statement, as we would feel that we are performing a good deed to society, however, this is a somewhat controversial topic due to certain criticisms. Singer believes that the people are not doing their duties of what is necessary to prevent these shortages. They value other personal things more than the lives of other humans. This results in these third-world countries having to make the choice between starving now or decreasing their development rate, which would result in starvation in the long run. Singer claims that people are aware of these issues, but they just need to change their moral framework. His moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society to a level of more global concern. Peter Singer opens his strong argument with the highly indisputable claim that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad. He does not argue for this premise because basically any given person on any given day would agree to this uncontroversial statement. Singer then states that if we can do something to help prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medicine, without sacrificing anything of morally comparable worth, then we should help. Based on these premises, he then states that it is in our power and duties to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. This principle seems obviously uncontroversial to the normal person, as it requires us only to prevent what is bad and promote what is good based on our moral conditions. In conclusion, we therefore must morally do anything it takes to prevent suffering from these problems, up to the point at which doing the least bit more would require us to sacrifice something of comparable moral importance.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
By a way of demonstrating his argument, Singer uses an analogy of a child drowning in a puddle. If we were walking down the street and saw a similar situation, we would be morally obliged to rescue the child from drowning if the only cost to us were to ruin our clothes. Very few people would deny that we are obliged to save the child when the cost to us is so little, especially since the death of the child would presumably be a bad thing. Singer’s argument has generated a lot of discussion. The main question is whether or not there is any evidence that Singer’s argument has made a difference in the way people behave. His argument might make people feel guilty, but unless that guilt stimulates a person to help, it
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

bs outline paper2 - In his article, Famine, Affluence, and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online