Review And Analysis Of “Famine, Affluence And Morality” By Peter Singer

What amount of cash would one say one is ethically required to provide for underdeveloped countries? One may argue that it would be a decent deed to do morally, however, isn't obliged to do. Others may contend that if a man is earning more than what he needs, at that point they should give a portion of what they have. In the late 1960’s and into the 1970’s, the South Asian region of East Bengal was undergoing a severe famine, mainly due to rampant poverty. The lack of overseas help to this impoverished region was probably what triggered Peter Singer to write the article Famine, Affluence and Morality, wherein he claims that world hunger and famine can be anticipated and conceivably destroyed if everybody in the wealthy countries did their bit to help the sufferers financially. Singer further claims that duty and charity should not be as distinct as they are now, and further hinting to combine the two. While analyzing Singer’s article and through the discussion that was done in class, I believe there are many problems with Singer’s proposal. Although Singer’s wanted to help the less unfortunate and had good intentions, his argument is neither feasible nor correct.

Before further analysis, it is essential to understand Singer’s argument. His paper starts by talking about the situation in East Bengal and how there was a close to no help for foreign aid to help alleviate the suffering of the victims of the famine there. He at that point widens the extent of his article to discuss individuals suffering on a global level. Singer’s argument is mainly targeted to the fact that people starving, suffering and dying which is something bad, and that prevention of any suffering is something we should do, if we are not doing without something of “comparable moral significance” (Singer 24). Singer also gives a weak argument for this theory, in which we must prevent suffering as long as we are not “sacrificing anything morally significant” (Singer 24). However, he later proceeds to state that he favors the first, stronger principle. Singer’s principle does not consider that many people look as charity as helping the unfortunate not as a duty, also he doesn’t consider by giving extra money that won’t cause people harm people will have to work forever, moreover he doesn’t talk about government intervention, and finally he doesn’t consider by giving extra money can cause harm to a person simultaneously.

The argument which I believe is more convincing is the sensible argument. It's an extreme misrepresentation to argue that one can simply give cash and that will spare lives. Lack of cash is one issue in poor parts of the world, but one.In many cases, the money that is being donated is either being wasted, lost to corrupt people, mismanaged, or stolen. The food and golds that are being donated are difficult or impossible to reach the underdeveloped countries, in certain cases they are blocked by governments and lack of infrastructure. Although when money and food are donated to the people involved the underdeveloped local economics would entirely depend on the outside source of donations rather than fixing the problem. Singer's response is that morality does make such demands on us. We reject that because we don't want to think about it that way. It is exhausting for us. But, just because we find it burdensome doesn't make morality doesn't make such demands. (Singer)

As to my own opinion, if you could reliably show me somewhere I could donate money that I would invest or spend on luxuries, and I honestly believed that by sacrificing my future’s source of security it would save someone's life, then I'd feel it was immoral not to donate it, per Singer's argument. However, in the event that I think my money will be tossed in a pile with a considerable amount with other people’s donations, be destroyed by corrupt charity based organizations, and might or might not benefit someplace down the road? I'm not convinced that is a moral obligation commitment.

Don’t get me wrong I think what charities are doing is brilliant, and I'm genuinely in awe by people who work to save peoples, but it's a mistake to assume that saving lives is easy and all we lack is the will. As of Singer’s argument, since I give charities most of the time not as much as Singer wants me too, but I do think by doing that I am “Doing the right thing” as I know where I am putting the money there is proof from the charities that my money is not being used for their own luxuries and being used to save someone’s live that may be geographically far, but to me I am morally correct. That's why Singer's "drowning child" analogy fails. If that child's in front of me, I know that I can take action that will save his life.If that child is starving in the midst of a horribly complex social, political and military situation five thousand miles away, in a culture and environment I can't begin to understand, I'm not convinced I can do anything for him.

Furthermore, by Singer’s logic we should keep working since we are morally obliged to give charity as a duty rather than just being a nice thing to do. Although by working forever it may burn you out, but Singer would argue that being tired or weary, these considerations would factor in when considering if continual donation could lead to morally significant concerns to you. I find that charity is not a duty, it would, in any case, be a moral obligation to give, and not doing so wont land you in jail, but you would feel immortal. The joy related to charity would be lost, and with it, the inspiration to give. The article does not guarantee that there would not be any charitable acts, but rather it suggests making a ton of charitable acts into obligations. This thought of making donations into something people are obliged to do is the main flaw of Singer's argument. It may sound honorable on paper, and it is established on extraordinary goals, however, there are numerous concerns that Singer still needs to determine. Indeed, it is necessary for us to increase the amount to help underdeveloped countries, however making it a moral obligation for individuals probably won't be the best solution overall.