Peter Singer Famine Essay

Words: 588
Pages: 3

Rationally, I agree with Peter Singer’s ode to fight famine and his claim that, as affluent beings, we are morally obligated to contribute in fighting it. My qualm with Singer’s argument is that it implies we need to fulfill this obligation all the time in saying “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” (Singer 231). It’s easy to derive from this statement that if we are, in essence, always affluent, then we are to always make our donation to fights against famine. However, I do not agree that this must be the case always—giving our share at every moment we live our lives as affluent beings.

First, consider the view provided by Immanuel Kant in which he derives our moral obligations or “maxims” by means of willingness and rational universal application: “I ought never act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim [(duty or guiding principle)] should become a universal law” (Kant 4:402). If we then consider a maxim to never help people then such a world is certainly plausible, but isn’t rationally desirable. Kant would then say that our duty to help others is an imperfect one: we ought to fulfill this duty, but only sometimes—not necessarily all the time. It seems that there is, perhaps, a tad bit off irrationality to donating a significant portion
…show more content…
Acting for our own welfare or in maximizing our self-interest may be alright with devoting a significant portion of our income—but what if, in effect, this deters our ability to maximize the benefit of our own well-being or welfare? The usefulness of this significant sum to be donated is blurred by where else it could be used to improve our well-being, or in other words, where this sum would be better suited in satisfying our self-interests or