Famine Affluence And Morality Essay Research Paper

Famine, Affluence, And Morality Essay, Research Paper

“Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Peter Singer

Webster’s English Dictionary defines “morality” as: the conformity to ideals of right human conduct. With this in mind, I wonder who determines right human conduct. Religion aside, there is no literary context that strictly states the rights and wrongs of human behavior. So who decides. Who determines what we ought morally to do and what we are obligated to do as a society. An Australian philosopher, Peter Singer attempts to draw the line between obligation and charity with the moral incentives to providing food for the starved in East Bengal. Although he presents many sound arguments, the reality of his utopian world is that it cannot exist. In the following expository, I will justify my reasoning behind this fact.

To discourse a charitable act is generally viewed as a philanthropic gesture, one that stems from a kind and worldly human being. However, if one has the resources to donate to a charitable cause, are they obligated to do so. Singer claims “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.” (page 151) If true, everyone who has ever had the funds and opportunity to help a charitable cause but didn’t, has neglected the welfare of the human race. Singer claims that generally speaking, “people

have not given large sums of money to relief funds; they have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased government assistance, they have not demonstrated in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing the refugees with the means to satisfy their essential needs.” With all respect to Mr. Singer, I beg to differ. I myself have never known a person whom didn’t give to some charitable cause through funding or donating their time. The United States Government has numerous support groups that’s sole purpose is to fend for impoverished countries like Bengal. For example, the U.S. Peace Corps, National Guard, Amnesty International, and American Red Cross, all of which raise funds and lend aid to areas of greatest need when it concerns the general welfare of the human race. Not only do governments lend aid, but BANDAID, Salvation Army, Tibetan Peace Conference, and numerous individual parties contribute moneys and rally support, march the streets, and demand relief to these countries.

Singer states “neither individuals nor governments can claim to be unaware of what is happening there [Bengal].” (page 152) My colleagues and I knew absolutely nothing of the recent developments in Bengal, which is not to say that we don’t read newspapers or watch the evening news, but rather that the United States has priorities within its own country. American citizens tend to focus on the hardships that are within their spectrum, just as the British focus on troubles within The United Kingdom. “The uncontroversial appearance of the principle just stated [without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance], if it were acted upon, even in its qualified form, our lives, our society, and our world would be fundamentally changed.” –Singer (page 153) Indeed, if this principle were to be carried out effectively, it would bring about change, but no matter what kinds of relief were provided, the world will inevitably suffer from disease and hardship. Thus, the world would not fundamentally be different. Many common ideals may perhaps be altered by the new “giving” state of mind, but the world would not be altered significantly. “It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor’s child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall I never know, ten thousand miles away.” People in general are “visual” persons. Most need to see it to believe it; they’re not going to offer support to a cause over the phone or a news article with weak evidence to support it. Those with the means to support a cause are far more likely to give to charity within their hometown, state, or country. I must help myself before I can help others, a creed commonly adopted by most individuals is the leading cause for the lack of support. The average individual is so entirely caught up in their own busy lives and goings on that they simply forget to widen their perspective. Hence, the distance factor makes all the difference. People, whether morally correct or not, are not about to give away a fortune to be spent on something somewhere they’ve never been, when they could be spending money on a cause they can clearly see taken into action. Hence, the logic that states “there is no possible justification for discriminating on geographical grounds” is untrue.

Singer illustrates how “one feels less guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others, similarly placed, who have also done nothing.” (page 151) In this case, I agree with Singer. Although it may seem the norm to act in this manner, it remains unjustifiable and shouldn’t make any difference to the moral obligations. “If everyone does what he ought to do, the result will not be as good as it would be if everyone did a little less than he ought to do, or if only some do all that they ought to do.” –Singer (page 155) Although Singer says this to be a paradox, I find it difficult to see the truth behind it. If everyone were to