PHI 208 Week 2 assignment Essay

In a piece by Peter Singer entitled, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer argues that Americans should prevent atrocious situations to arise but, we also should not sacrifice something of equal importance while doing so. Moreover, in the piece by John Arthur, “World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The Case Against Singer,” Arthur disagrees with Singer; he believes that we should help the poverty-stricken but, it is not morally imperative to do so.

     In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer is trying to argue that “the way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation… cannot be justified; indeed,… our moral conceptual scheme needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(Singer 230). Peter Singer provides striking examples to show the reader how realistic his arguments are. In this paper, I will briefly give a summary of Peter Singer’s argument and the assumptions that follow, adding personal opinions for or against Peter’s statements. I hope that within this paper, I am able to be clearly show you my thoughts in regards to Singer.

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer claims that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Additionally, Singer believes that distance is no excuse for allowing something bad to happen; thus, we ought to help people on the other side of the world the same way we would help a neighbor – even though we may feel further inclined to help our neighbors. Moreover, Singer states that people should help as much as possible, without putting themselves or their dependents at risk of suffering. Peter Singer is correct in stating that people with the capacity to prevent something bad from occurring should do so; however,

1. In the paternalistic model of doctor-patient relationship, power resident exclusively with Doctors; in the engineering model, it resides entirely with Patients.

You are planning an outing with a group of individuals. Some of the individuals need assistance with using the toilet, eating and drinking, and with their medication.

This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.

In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, published on September 5th, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate excess income to aid organizations. His article consists of a gathering of exaggerated situations which he uses to engage readers, while also adequately supporting an argument of moral duty by comparing the hypothetical scenarios to Americans who do not donate. Singer exhibits an appeal to pathos to a substantial amount throughout his article. The provided situations set an outline for the reader to feel certain, appealing emotions.

Philosophers, Peter Singer’s and Onora O’Neill’s attempt to draw connection between poverty and moral philosophy and how aid should be directed towards groups in absolute poverty. The aim of this paper is to provide an extensive analysis on the work of both the philosophers’ while outlining some of the limitations each of the theories has.

The second policy that is ‘takin care of our own’ proposes a preference that is grounded on emotional, social and geographical closeness. I earlier suggested that Singer’s opinions are reflexivity, tractability and approachability. He does so by attracting attention to matters and making claims such as "If, then, allowing someone to die is not intrinsically different from killing someone, it would seem that we are all murderers" (2011: 194). Despite his conclusion that failing to save a life is not the moral equivalent. The reader is provoked into reflecting on their own sense of morality, especially powerful against intuitive objections. On the other hand, his conclusions are backed by realistic assumptions of consequences, which exemplify

In accordance to a potentially tragic situation, Singer believes that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it.” For example, if one were to see someone tied to train tracks with an oncoming train, it is in our moral ability to prevent the incident if it is possible. Although if we are aware of an incident yet we are certain we would not make it back alive either, we are not obligated to prevent it. It comes down to the individual of wether or not they are willing to sacrifice their life. There are many questions one may consider as they decide what they will do. Do I love this person enough to die for them? If we are a community, are we expected to love and care for everyone in our community just as much? This, in turn complicates our expectations of what our sense community

Singer in his essay “The Solution to World Poverty” provides a solution for solving the issue of poverty by donating all excess money for the needs of poor people. He urges readers that everyone, who have sufficient household income, is required to give away all their unnecessary money to overseas aid organizations. Moreover, he argues that if people fail to do so, they are living unworthy immoral lives (5). In this paper I will argue that by giving extreme examples and information of aid agencies Singer makes us feel forced in donation of excess money, whereas this action should be voluntary and it should not be considered if we are not willing to give away all excess

Within “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer delves into the topic of famine; specifically, the moral obligations individuals in affluent countries have to those who are suffering. In his example, Singer focuses on the population of East Bengal, and their struggle with famine and extreme poverty. Singer proposes that with enough aid from both individuals and various governments extreme poverty can be eradicated. Therefore, the question he presents is why poor people are dying while affluent people are spending excess money on luxuries? Singer argues that affluent people, living in affluent countries, are not helping developing countries by failing to give enough to alleviate extreme poverty.

From there, he further adds a weaker version of the second principle as he subsites “something of roughly equal moral importance” for “something of moral significance” (506). He provides an example for this weaker principle, which is as follows: if one is in a position to save a child drowning in a pond, one should do so even though one might get their clothes muddy as that is not a morally significant cost and the child’s death would be an extremely morally bad state of affairs (506). There is potentially a third premise, which is that we can not only prevent, but alleviate this poverty induced suffering, without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance. Following the premises, Singer presents his conclusion, which is that we ought to contribute as much as we can to the eradication of poverty, until doing so harms us more than it benefits them. In other words, we should give to the extent that if we were to give more, we would cause ourselves as much suffering as we are preventing from someone else.

There were a number of objections so Singer’s argument that we have a moral obligation to contribute to prevent some poverty. I will be focusing on and discussing what I believe to be the two strongest objections. The first objection follows “Taking care of our own”, which suggests that people feel strongly about preventing poverty for themselves, their families, or people geographically closer before they think about poverty in distant areas. This objections is based on emotional, social, and geographical rationality. They feel that they are not responsible for the poverty in other countries nor the poorness of others; they are more so focus on people who they already have personal relationships. The objection claims that it would be absurd

Nowadays, the process of globalization strengthens the connections between numerous countries across the world, and enables people living in developed countries to help those who are experiencing famine, deaths and diseases in poor countries. However, the moral necessity of doing so has been controversial in human’s society for years. One philosopher named Peter Singer gives his opinion in the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, and presents a powerful argument supporting his claim. In this essay, I will explain his conclusion and main argument, propose one objection to his argument, and evaluate the validity of my objection by considering possible response that Peter Singer would make to my objection.