Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Singer’s Article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Singer’s article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” proposes a possible method of thinking about morality, philanthropy, and famine assistance that he finds devastating. He believes that people in wealthy countries are more likely to change their ways of life in order to demonstrate their dedication to supporting those in need (Singer 230). The foregoing constitutes his thesis statement, which he attempts to elaborate on throughout the article through numerous arguments and counterarguments as described in the paper.

Singer’s Claim and Premises

Singer backs up his claim with two premises. To begin, he hypothesizes that suffering that leads to death is dreadful, regardless of whether it is caused by a lack of food, housing, or medical attention. The principle gets accepted without controversy from philosophers. Secondly, Singer (233) postulates that one should prevent a morally bad situation without sacrificing anything of equal moral benefit. Significantly, Singer gives the meaning of this by discussing that one should avoid something bad from happening without sacrificing moral support of equal importance. He expounds this by providing an example of a drowning child who needs assistance. Child’s death would be morally wrong thus needs to be rescued by someone who can risk dirtying himself and getting wet as this is not of equal moral importance as noted by Singer (236). Singer empowers people to prevent bad things without sacrificing anything of moral benefit. The postulations sum his argument that affluent should avert lack of basic needs to avoid the moral result which is suffering and death. Correspondingly he argues that people are obligated to give maximally to prevent lack of basic needs like food and water. Notably, his stress is on assisting without morally sacrificing anything of equal importance.

Evaluation of the Arguments

Singer’s argument is inductively strong and comprises a lot of objections defining the various counterarguments presented. Specifically, he theorizes an idea first then moves to generalizing it to make a connection with the broader world. The second argument principle is debatable as it does not cover the morality of humans. More so, if all people upheld and acted accordingly, the society would transform to the betterment of all. Although the principle is good as it does not discriminate against the noble sacrifice to be made, people discriminate over proximity by offering moral support to people they are close to as cited by Singer (238). People always fail to accept the principle of universality, equality, and impartiality resulting in forms of discrimination.

The argument by singer problematizes the traditional definition of duty and charity. For instance, his reasoning that people should give as much as possible to curb starvation culminates to more problem since not everyone will give the quoted amount. If one is charitable and offers more, it leads to more money which worsens the outcome as people’s sacrifice will no longer count (Singer 240). Such reasoning still gets grounded on the principle of comparable moral significance where we opt to give our wealthy since using it for our good may prevent others from enjoying their freedom from starvation.

Singer is accused of the fallacy of hasty generalization when he argues that one should not get punished for stealing if those in need in the society are not attended to in a timely manner. He inductively explains that shunning murder will consequently led to no help in relieving famines (Singer 242). Considerably, it is inconsistent to compare murder and famine relief as Singer does thus making his assumptions idealistic though meaningless. In a nutshell, Singer’s conclusions are not entirely correct hence the various objections and counterarguments that his essay faces.

Works Cited

Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1972), pp. 229-243.