The first individual is nicely dressed in fashionable name brand clothes and shoes, jewelry, and a cell phone. Singer then adds to this argument by saying that the existence or not of proximity, and the number of people prepared to help, should not make any difference to our moral obligations, namely, the fact that the Bengali refugees are tens of thousands of miles away should not lessen our obligations to them.
And the same is for people starving in Bengal. He contends that there is a psychological difference but the moral implications are still the same as it is absurd to be less obliged to help the drowning child even if there were many others idling around; likewise for the starving Bengali.
This has severe economic repercussions if everyone adopts the idea, as economies are more fragile than Singer thinks. Singer begins by saying that assistance has been inadequate as richer countries prioritise development above preventing starvation.
We can revisit the drowning child analogy and argue against his first and second points that it is more reasonable for a person to be cynical about overseas aid than diving straight in to save a drowning child.
See if you have enough points for this item. I say that you can either give enough of your income away so that a Bengali child has enough money to buy one bowl of food, or you can ask yourself why the political and social system in Bengal is not working as well as ours does. Singer begins his article by highlighting the current issue of famine and suffering in East Bengal.
This would mean, of course, that one would reduce oneself to very near the material circumstances of a Bengali refugee.
Today a majority of the population views contributions as a virtuous action, but do not believe it is wrong not to do it. Singer also gives two objections. This person looks homeless and near starvation.
In order for individuals to be motivated to give what they consider their hard-earned money away, an exact amount needs to be established. Also, you would of course be less happy as you would be sacrificing some of your luxuries. But if too much is given away, then that in itself is creating a recipe for economic disaster BBC, He defines this notion as being the act of giving away too much so as to….
Here, Singer commits the fallacy of hasty generalisation, as he attempts to appeal to our emotions by comparing two extreme cases — murder and providing relief — and his example, biased as it is, is barely applicable in the realm of daily dealings.
Singer gives three counter-arguments that explain his ideas on the fact for his moral reasoning. We spend our money on clothes we do not necessarily need, so would not be sacrificing anything of moral importance if we were to give that money to charity and keep enough clothes to stay warm.
Whether it be a distance of 20 feet, 20 yards, or 20 miles makes no moral differences. Unfortunately, human beings have not made the necessary decisions.
However, his conclusion is true only insofar as his premises hold, but they lean on foundations and assumptions that lack weight other than the conviction of emotional appeal.
The issues deal with the lack of progress in the betterment of society and although the article was originally written more than four decades ago, the situation around the globe remains unchanged.
Perhaps you would be happy at the thought of helping someone in a dire situation, and a few Bengalis might be happier but for no longer than a week or so.
Help the Bengalis, but not by self-sacrifice. Singer, being a bio ethicist and a strong anti-war and animal rights protester, would probably think that a capitalist society would not benefit anybody.
It is a limited-term solution to a societal problem that will only keep increasing. He argued that choosing not to send life-saving money to starving people on the other side of the earth is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save drowning children because we prefer not to muddy our shoes.
He asserts that even when the implications of working full time have been taken into account, such as the unpleasantness of work overload, it still stands that we should give as much as we can.Peter Singer – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Please read the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” by Peter Singer and complete the following tasks.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality PHI Mind and Machine August 19, In this article Peter Singer’s goal is to shed light and bring awareness to the way people in.
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” The are two things in this article I want to focus on. The first is the main argument of the paper, which we find presented on pp. – “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” name PHI Ethics and Moral Reasoning instructor date Peter Singer’s goal in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality was to convince people that the people as well as the governments should help with famine relief, primarily in East Bengal.
A Review of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence and Morality PHI Ethics and Moral Reasoning 8 July Singer's goal in the article Famine, Affluence and Morality is to try and get people to understand their moral obligation to help those in need.
He uses a refugee camp as an example that people are starving to death. Created Date: 9/9/ PM.Download