A Review of Peter Singers Famine, Affluence and Morality free essay sample

Singers goal in the article Famine, Affluence and Morality is to try and get people to understand their moral obligation to help those in need. He uses a refugee camp as an example that people are starving to death. But when you look at the article as a whole, he is trying to show an even bigger picture. There are people suffering all over the world, and there are those who can do something to ease that suffering. Many people choose to turn a blind eye to what is going on around them. They expect the government to step in to provide the necessary aid. As a society dont we have a moral obligation to take care of not only those we see suffering, but also people in other countries who are less fortunate than us. One of the counter arguments presented in this article is that there are millions of people all over the world who are suffering on a daily bases. Why should the refugees in Bengali take precedence over any other country where there are people starving and dying? Its the idea that people get in their minds how can I, one person make a difference? Or why should I give to aid relief if no else is? Singers response to this argument is that we still have a moral obligation to help when we see someone in need. If everyone always had the mindset of what good will my help be or Ill wait for someone to do it first, then no one would ever get any help. Another counter argument is that overseas aid should be the responsibility of that countries government. The counter argument from the article gives the following reason for not giving to private charities giving privately, it is said, allows the government and the noncontributing members of society to escape their responsibilities. (Singer,1972) Singers response to this unfounded assumption is that if no one gives than the government is more likely to assume it citizens dont care about relief, therefore they wont provide the necessary aid. Some people want to believe that they can force the government to take action. What they dont realize is that you cant force the government to do anything. By refusing to give to private charities you are just increasing the suffering. A third counter argument that is presented is that by not giving to relief funds creates population control. The people are going to die anyway so why prolong the inevitable by giving them enough food to last a few more days. While Singer recognizing that it would be imposable for the earth to support a rapidly growing population, should we base our giving on what we thing may happen in the future? If people are suffering shouldnt others who can help provide that help at the present time. If everyone thought about the what ifs than people are going to continue to suffer. Just because someone might die tomorrow does that mean they have to suffer today? Singers concept of marginal utility is whether we should give to the point where we are also suffering to ease the suffering of others? He expressed in the article that we have a moral obligation to prevent bad things from happening. If we are also suffering then nothing bad is actually be prevented. This relates to the article because he is trying to make the point that no one is even willing to give a little, let alone everything they have. Bad things are still happening, people are still suffering. And those who have the power to help choose to do nothing. In Singers proposed world people would want to willing give to help those in need. They would look at giving to charity as a duty and responsibility rather than a burden or hardship on themselves. It can be compared to giving tithes when you go to church. As Christians they feel they have the duty to pay tithes, for many this is done willing and brings them joy. They dont see it as a burden or someone elses responsibility. I am in the middle in regards to Singers article. While I do feel that people who are able to give should; I also get the feeling that Singer would want a world where everyone has the same thing. There are no rich or poor, just one class. Would this type of world prevent suffering? I dont think it would, I think that it would lead to people depending on others instead of working for themselves. Another reason I am leaning more toward a neutral ground is because whenever there is money involved there is also greed. There are fake charities that use relief work as a way to get money. And there are corrupt governments that would use any money donated to benefit themselves. According to the text when there is an economic exchange between people, one party is always going to try and get the most they can. (Mosser, 2010) Im not saying that all charities are bad or that all governments use the suffering of their people to benefit them. In reality it does happen. According to an online article Many aid dollars are stolen by corrupt people at nearly every level of government, and the actual needs of a community are often unmet. Programs are built to satisfy larger governmental bodies and donor interests before considering the interests of the communities. (Gramzinski, 2012) This is one of the reasons I hesitate to side with Singer. How do I know my money is being used for actual aid? Another reason I am in the middle is because there are several people in my own home town that need the help. This argument was presented in the article, but I feel strongly that we should first help those in our own country. There are over 16 million children in America that go without food on a daily bases. (No Kid Hungry, nd) How can I justify giving to a foreign country when I can give to local charities that provide for the people living around me. We as humans do have a moral obligation to take care of each other, Whether its donating to foreign aid or to a local charity. Taking care of others doesnt always have to be in the form of money. Sometimes the time you donate to help others is just as helpful.