PHI 208 Week 2 assignment
Famine, Affluence, and Morality
In Peter Singer’s 1972 post titled “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, he conveys that wealthy nations, for example the United States, has an ethical duty to contribute much a lot more than we do with regards to worldwide assistance for famine relief and/or other disasters or calamities which may happen - PHI 208 Week 2 assignment introduction. In this document, I will describe Singers objective in his work and give his argument with regards to this problem. I will describe 3 counter-arguments to Singer’s view which he tackles, and after that reveal Singer’s reactions to those counter-arguments. I will explain Singer’s idea of marginal utility and also differentiate how it pertains to his argument.
More Essay Examples on Ethics Rubric
I will compare how the ideas of duty and charity alter in his suggested world. To conclude, I will provide my own reaction about this problem supporting singer’s argument. Should wealthier nations have a moral duty to relieve poorer nations if a disastrous event were to happen? I think that we all must contribute in times of need even if this means substantially modifying the way in which we live for the objective of assisting other people so long as it doesn’t cause us to suffer.
The primary objective of Singer’s post is to convey that we the folks have the capacity to assist men and women in need that is less lucky since it’s our moral duty to do so. He uses the disaster in East Bengal for example. As per Singer, P. (1972), “Continuous poverty, a cyclone, and a civil war have turned a minimum of 9 million people into abandoned refugees; nonetheless, it’s not beyond the capability of the wealthier countries to provide sufficient help to decrease further suffering to very small proportions” (pg. 229).
He thinks that there’s no reason at all for folks to suffer if other people have the capability to avoid it from happening. It’s our moral responsibility to drastically modify our way of life so as to achieve this important objective. They are in pain, hungry, are in acute need of medical care and some are dying. We have the capabilities to decrease this suffering and pain nevertheless, we disregard the problem and do nothing at all, which can be immoral. We should modify our opinions of morality so as to develop a dedication to helping people in terrible need.
Singer provides counter-arguments in his work which I will talk about thoroughly. He offers his readers with a scenario which involves a drowning kid and a witness. Most people would try to save the kid since it’s the “right” action to take. Singer proposes that this duty happens since lots of people know that a drowning kid is definitely a very bad thing and that we should do everything and anything in our power to prevent it from happening. But, the counter-argument in this situation proposes that because I am not the only individual seeing this event, why is it my duty to do something positive about it? Why must it be my ethical responsibility to assist this kid in case nobody else is doing anything regarding it? Singer, P. (1972) describes, “In case it’s in our power to avoid something bad from occurring, without thereby compromising anything of comparable moral significance, we should, morally, to do it” (pg. 231). He thinks that we are able to do what’s right however we should decide to do what’s right even when everybody else decides not to.
Singer also touches on whether our moral responsibilities must be restricted to distance and/or nearness. The counter-argument in this instance proposes that because these suffering people are so far away, why is it my moral responsibility to help them instead of using it in my own area? As per Singer, P. (1972), “It makes no ethical difference whether the individual I can assist is a neighbor’s kid 10 yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, 10,000 miles away” (pg.232). It’s still our moral obligation to do what’s right. Is it morally appropriate to discriminate against a suffering individual just due to their distance? Singer, P. (1972), proposes, “In case we accept any rule of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we can’t discriminate against somebody just because he is far away from us (or we are far off from him) (pg. 232)”. A person’s distance must not restrict our moral duties.
Singer describes that everybody must give when it’s required. Many people are not contributing, so how much must I give without making myself and/or my loved ones worse off? The counter-argument here is whether to give more that can possibly cause me harm from doing so. He discusses the probability of contributing to the point of marginal utility. As per Singer, P. (1972), “Because the situation seems to be that not many people are likely to give considerable sums, it makes sense that I and everybody else in similar conditions must give as much as possible, that’s, at least up to the level at which by giving more one would start to cause acute suffering for oneself and one’s dependents-perhaps even beyond this level to the stage of marginal utility, at which by giving more one would cause oneself and one’s loved ones just as much suffering as one would prevent in Bengal” (pg. 234). To conclude, we all must give as much as possible so long as it doesn’t cause us to suffer in the process.
Singer proposes that responsibility and charity is our ethical duty. We “ought” to assist unknown people in need of assistance if we are capable to and that it would be morally incorrect not to contribute. We must put on our old garments instead of purchasing new ones just for the simple truth that you want to be well attired. Duty and charity change in this future world since in this era, many people won’t give up certain luxuries so as to give to other people. Most people are selfish and would prefer to indulge in the finer matters in life rather than worrying about contributing their hard earned bucks to other people in need of assistance.
Individually, I support Singer’s point for a lot of reasons. I do think that we must assist folks in need when we are capable of doing so as long as it doesn’t cause us to suffer fiscally. I agree that a few luxuries must be overlooked if it implies that a life can be saved. In case we were suffering or in an identical condition, would we wish or expect assistance? I agree that it’s the correct thing to do morally. Herman, B. (2003), proposes, “We should negotiate a good reaction to the undeniable facts of need-of starvation, illness, as well as poverty”. I don’t believe that we must discriminate against a suffering person simply because that individual isn’t in our society. The life of an individual is invaluable and must come first of all.
To conclude, Singer’s primary point is that it is our moral obligation to assist other people in times of need with regards to health care, providing food, protection or other requirements. I agree that we must contribute our money and time to assist other people if it doesn’t create a bad impact to our own lives. In this era, lots of people are selfish as well as greedy and don’t usually stop to take into consideration other people in need of assistance. People need to understand that there are lots of people around suffering and may ultimately pass away if they don’t get the assistance which they need as well as deserve. I agree that it’s our moral duty to assist any man in urgent need even when it’s an individual thousands of miles away.