Peter Singer Famine Affluence And Morality

Words: 696
Pages: 3

Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, opposes to the way people perceive and deal with poverty, famine and the sufferance of the less fortunate. In his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, he argues that we are failing to perform our moral duties insofar as we live lives of relative luxury while others are suffering and dying due to diseases, famine. He believes that it’s possible to reduce the pain and the sufferance of people and to avoid it if we give up our nonessentials. He states that it’s morally wrong if we don’t try to prevent these deaths, because we have these luxuries that if we give up, we can make a meaningful impact on the lives we save.
Singer begins by assuming that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad”. This sets the floor for his second principle which is If one can prevent something bad without sacrificing something of comparable moral worth, then one ought to do so. In this context, “ought” means that if you don't do so then you are doing something morally wrong. This principle required not only that we give up everything which is a luxury but we give up everything up to what we make the point of marginal utility.
He implements his
…show more content…
In other words, they see it as an act of generosity, an act that they should be thanked for. Therefore, they think that if they decide not to give they shouldn’t be condemned for it. However, Singer disagrees with this. He believes that giving is different form charity and shouldn’t be considered as "supererogatory". Unlike charity, “we ought to give the money away, and it is wrong not to do so.” Singer believes that it is our moral duty to give up the life or relative luxury to help those suffering from diseases, lack of resources, famine etc. He argues that giving is a duty and not an act of charity therefor we ought to do it regardless of the distance and the number of people who are taking