Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

Words: 1505
Pages: 7

Peter Singer’s argument on international aid requires the use of several premises and a single conclusion. Premise 1 states “that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” (“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” 231). The negative effects of starvation (e.g., suffering and death) are major evils which could be reduced, if not averted in its entirety. Singer is largely unconcerned with defending the validity of this premise as he believes most people will accept the notion as it stands. Though uncontroversial when observed at the superficial level, premise 2 of Singer’s argument is among the most challenging to deal with. It consists of two versions of the principle of preventing bad occurrences. The strong version argues, “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” (“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” 231). The supposedly moderate version of his principle argues, “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” 231).
Premise 3 makes
…show more content…
He makes the argument that the any variance between the shallow pond and the Bengal depicted scenarios are insignificant when regarding the general applicability of his principle. He highlights an interesting point of difference between the two examples which an advocate of traditional morality might refer to in arguing that affluent individuals have little to no obligation to provide famine relief: the proximity or distance of those who need help. Singer states that this distinction does not have an impact on our moral