Famine Affluence And Morality Peter Singer Summary

1137 Words5 Pages
Micheal Jones PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Prof. Kathleen Andrews June 13, 2013 Giving: Is It Our Moral Obligation? “It is better to give than to receive”, many of us are familiar with this statement but few live by this golden rule. In today’s society it is everyman for himself. The weak are left to suffer with no hope of being rescued. We live in a world where we expect people to assist us in our time of need although we refuse to help those who truly need our assistance. Instead of making excuses, pointing fingers and placing blame on those less fortunate for their short comings ,we should learnt to embrace others and uplift them . At the end of it all giving to others in need is the only moral and ethical thing we can choose…show more content…
In this article the author sets out to prove that as human beings we have not made the necessary decisions in order to help those in need (Singer). Singer feels that giving to people in need is the only ethical thing to do regardless of the excuses we come up with to get out of doing so. The example he uses to plead his case is the famine in East Bengal. In his writings Singer states that there was no particular reason for choosing this plague other then the fact that it was currently happening and that due to its publicity this event can’t be over looked (Singer). To prove his point the author brings up the fact that government s such as the British and Australians put more effort into beautification than into the welfare of those suffering. This lack of concern by government and its citizens cannot be justified in the eyes of the writer (Singer). This point is driven home by the statement, “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do…show more content…
This philosophical theory is all about weighing what has the best outcome for the most people (Mosser). Marginal utility is an economic level where a person gives to the point where the suffering they cause themselves and their dependents is equal to the amount of assistance their gift provides (Mosser).most people feel that if they give to this point they are being charitable but is that really the case? Another issue addressed in this writing was that of duty and charity. Do we as a society have their definitions confused? Giving money to the relief fund is considered charity however if it is our obligation wouldn’t that make it our duty? Due to the fact that giving is considered to be an act of generosity then people who do not give are not seen as being wrong but those who choose to, are praised for their support (Singer). The author feels that in order for us to live up to our moral obligations we must fix or understanding of these
Open Document