Peter Singer Famine Summary

Words: 1570
Pages: 7

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, Peter Singer argues the manner in how people in affluent countries react towards those in need. Our traditional moral categories of duty and charity have diminished during time and we also view a deficiency in food, shelter, and poverty. Singer explains the insufficient moral responsibility of people and assumes that a lack of food causes starvation and family deaths are a form of suffering as well. As we all know, suffering is morally wrong; and these premises could have been prevented. Singer regards us to hand out a deal of wellness in hopes to help others in need. He also believes charity work should not be charity work; it must be something that should be morally given out in a form of generosity. …show more content…
There would be a dramatic change in every individual’s perspective and each person would not help one another and just work for their moral rights. Simply not thereby thinking of moral importance of others but themselves. In regards to his Prevention Principle, we would do the contrary and instead of meeting our resource, we would actually not meet the basic need resources and help those in need. As Singer stated, “Very few people are likely to give substantial amounts” (Singer, P.), and that is what everyone else would continue to do so. The community does take this as a huge compromise, which is why some can come out to be against Peter Singer’s point of view. Their viewpoint is even by donating to famine relief organizations, there will be no change and people will continue to starve. In other words, donators will be giving to this generation but the upcoming generations will still be suffering from starvation. People would in such case take everything as a moral obligation and take every scenario into a must than a should. There would be less critical thinking, and just think of their own self and not much of being in the other person’s