In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” various perspectives on famine relief are discussed. One viewpoint focuses on the scarcity of food, especially during the Bangladesh famine. The author emphasizes that if people can help those affected by famine without harming themselves or others, it is morally wrong to choose not to provide assistance.
In his argument, Singer posits that declining to rescue a drowning child in a shallow pond, despite having the capability to do so, is an immoral act. He highlights that the moral obligations of the potential rescuer remain unaltered regardless of the distance between them and the person in need. Singer maintains that considering interests beyond those of our own society holds significant ethical importance, whether it be a neighbor’s child or an unfamiliar Bengali residing thousands of miles away.
Previously, it may have been challenging to consider this as a possibility, but now it is entirely feasible. From an ethical perspective, the significance of preventing millions of people from starving outside our society must be perceived as equally urgent as upholding property norms within our society. Singer’s primary concern was whether it is possible to provide assistance without having the desire to do so or if one can help someone without wanting to but still be capable of offering aid. A prime example illustrating this is the scenario of a child in a pond; being in close proximity and not desiring to help differs greatly from wanting to assist the same child who is far away.
If we can prevent something harmful from happening without sacrificing something morally important, it is our moral duty to do so. We have the ability to prevent this harmful event and we can do it without giving up something morally significant. The only way to prevent the lack of food and shelter without sacrificing something morally important is by giving a maximum amount (or at least significantly more than what we currently give). When it comes to doing what is right, it is perfectly reasonable to assist someone struggling with opening a door while carrying grocery bags. Initially, the argument was not just about doing small right things but rather going above and beyond our usual efforts to help those in need.
I strongly agree with this statement. There have been several instances where I faced difficulties in helping individuals who were not part of my immediate living situation or social circle. This proved to be challenging as I wrongly presumed that these individuals, due to their physical strength, would not need any assistance. However, I was mistaken in assuming that having exceptional physical strength automatically translates into possessing adequate intellectual skills to handle certain tasks.
The guy eventually requested assistance, and I willingly offered it. However, there is a stark contrast between merely doing charity work and actively providing substantial support to feed someone. When it comes to acts of charity, many individuals believe that giving a few pennies does not make a significant impact. Charity takes on various forms, such as individuals aiding churches and communities to improve living conditions, or others assisting foundations as volunteers without any expectation of monetary compensation.
Singer asserts that performing acts of charity involves having the motivation and determination to do so without seeking any rewards. This perspective requires individuals to dedicate substantial efforts to assist others and reconsider their understanding of “Charity.” This aligns with Thomas Aquinas’ traditional viewpoint, which emphasizes the importance of caring for others without expecting personal benefits. Therefore, it is crucial to offer immediate aid while also promoting methods for population control.
Although Singer’s suggestion of offering direct aid and encouraging population control is widely seen as detrimental to our economy, this does not imply that we should persist with the present method of allotting a mere 1% of resources towards addressing famine. Instead, it presents an opportunity to contemplate the extent to which we should enhance relief endeavors without compromising expenditure in a society centered on consumption like ours. It is crucial to strike a harmonious equilibrium that avoids diminishing the pool of available donations. While mandating individuals to contribute merely 1% is inadequate, demanding everyone to give 25% would be excessive.
It is unrealistic to expect the American people, in such a struggling economy, to give more than they have. Instead, it is more practical to incorporate charitable contributions into our regular expenses. I believe that the majority of individuals would not support this idea as it would further harm the economy. Additionally, when people consider charity or their modest one percent contribution, they often believe it will make a significant impact. However, these contributions are generally limited to festive holidays and medical expenses.
As a reader, it seems that suffering is inherently negative for the person experiencing it. However, it may not have the same effect on someone else who can take actions to alleviate this suffering. While suffering is harmful to the individual going through it, whether or not it has an adverse impact on another person who is not directly involved remains uncertain. We can conclude that the suffering endured by an individual does have a negative influence on another person as long as they share a unique connection with the sufferer.
The suffering of a child due to the absence of essential necessities is harmful for both the child and their mother. This is because the mother has a duty towards her child and their well-being is interconnected. Singer highlights that rescuing a drowning child in a shallow pond may be hard to rationalize if it involves an unrelated person. He stresses that the number of individuals capable of assisting in this scenario does not have a substantial effect.
In regards to the argument mentioned above, Singer dismisses anyone who agrees with it. He believes that even if many people are in the same situation, choosing not to take action does not release us from our responsibility. Singer emphasizes that although there may be a psychological difference between these situations, feeling less guilty about doing nothing because others in a similar position have also done nothing does not alter our ethical obligations.
In considering whether I am less obligated to rescue a drowning child from a pond if I see others, equally close to the child, who have also noticed but are doing nothing, one can quickly see the absurdity of the notion that numbers diminish obligation. Singer counters such arguments by stating that even if there are numerous individuals in the same or even better positions to offer assistance, it does not alleviate the fundamental duty of each individual to help in a manner that appears appropriate to them.
The obligation is not to match the highest donor, but to give individually what we owe to ourselves. In general, I agree with Singer’s arguments because it is not expected for someone unrelated or inconvenienced to help out, especially if it jeopardizes or affects them. Additionally, Singer emphasizes the importance of making greater efforts in donations to prevent world hunger, as he mentioned with the example of the starving country.
