Overview_of_Famine,_Affluence

“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Constant famine is one of the great issues facing our global society today. The article examines why Singer believes it is morally indefensible that suffering as a result of poverty is bad. He argues that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate far more resources to the poor in this world. Singer introduces the famine in Bengal setting up his first premise that starvation is bad. His second premise is, “if it is possible to stop something bad from happening, then we should do all we can to stop it as long as it does not cause something else just as bad to happen.”(Singer,1971) His arguments are clear, logical, and motivated by utilitarian perspectives. Singer’s first premise is simple, it states the idea that humans suffering from poverty and famine is "bad." This basic point is not dwelled upon, because Singer assumes that most people will reach the same understanding via different routes; thereby rendering this assumption as accepted. His second premise that if we can alleviate suffering without sacrificing anything of significant moral importance, we ought to do it. To apply this principle, he gives the drowning child analogy; If one sees a child drowning in a shallow pond, one should wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting your clothes muddy, but this is insignificant because muddy clothes don’t justify allowing the death of the child because they aren’t morally comparable. The author also points out that proximity and distance are morally irrelevant, especially today, because there are expert observers and organizations to send aid. He notes that we can send a small amount of money to a foreign country, and that money will save the lives of many people. Likewise, he believes there is no reason why people should not uphold their moral responsibility when others can help out as well. Therefore, one is not less obliged to pull the child out of the pond if others are doing nothing. Singer believes that the distinction between duty and charity is in the wrong place. The idea that it is charitable to give but it is also acceptable not to give needs to be changed. For example if one gives money to charity, then one is considered praiseworthy. In the same way, Singer suggests that one who indulges in luxury and money, and does not give to those in need should be considered blameworthy. This unexplainable duty or morality seems to transcend all world views solidifying the claim of a universal morality. One objection to Singer’s position as it relates to affluence and charity is the way people judge morality. Moral condemnation is reserved for those who violate a social norm, and not for those who indulged in luxury instead of giving to charity. A change will be too drastic for our moral scheme, since people don’t judge morality in that way. Moreover, if a new morality code was implemented, there would be a break down in our morality code. Furthermore, Singer’s idea conflicts with utilitarianism. A utilitarian would work hard to produce the greatest amount of happiness over any pain. Singer maintains that this is the real world and that theory simply does not apply. I think we all would agree than an idealistic world would be void of pain, suffering, and evils like poverty. The existence of a moral imperative to help those in need was evident in the recent presidential election. If enough people give, small donations can be a powerful social force that can make difference.