Peter Singer’s Arguments
Peter Singer’s arguments in Famine, Affluence and Moralityinsists that people should often do more than what they are expectedin order to help the poor. In this case, Singer reveals that oneshould not allow bad things to happen in the society. Besides that,the community will be expected to sacrifice something so as to servethe ones that might need financial support. This essay will revealhow Singer believes that assisting the individuals in need isobligatory and a good thing to do as well.
Singer asserts that people should focus on doing a morallysignificant act even if it means sacrificing another important issue.For instance, he talks about a person that has to taint his or herclothes in the process of saving a drowning child (Singer, 1972). Inthis case, one will forego the neatness of his or her clothes for thesake of rescuing the kid’s life. He expects people to use the sameassumption in saving people that are suffering from famine in thethird-world nations. In particular, the concept insists that peopleneed to do more than they often execute to ensure that the poorpeople find help (Singer, 1972). One might decide to donate morefunds that exceed the normal contribution that one is expected togive. Furthermore, the scenario also suggests that poverty is bad,and the entire society needs to unite and reduce such consequences.However, they will achieve that if they sacrifice their prestige orpossessions and focus on improving the lives of the poor individuals.It also acknowledges the need to give maximally in order to savethese people that do not have anything at their disposal.
More important, Singer also suggests that it is not necessary todonate to the needy, but, it is obligatory and the good thing to do.In this case, he insists that it is not a necessity that peopleshould take their money to other people. Instead, it is a moralobligation where a person should consider the essence of the act. Forinstance, people need to understand the suffering that the have-notsundergo in the society. Hence, the affluent individuals need toacknowledge that the needs of the starving people are also pressingand same to what the entire nation experiences at that time (Singer,1972). Besides that, the fact that helping others is not necessarydoes not justify the actions where one will fail to donate to thepoor. Morality asserts that people should consider the interests thatother individuals might have. In the process, it will be quite easierto help them when they are facing various challenges in their lives.Even if it is not wrong when one fails to help the poor, it is alsothe good thing that one can undertake since it has multiple benefits(Singer, 1972). In summary, the simple acts also result in somethingthat is more than a duty as well.
In conclusion, Singer understands that supporting the poor people isa good thing that everyone should embrace since it reduces poverty,which is bad. In fact, the argument also insists that a person willhelp others after he or she has sacrificed another thing. Forinstance, one can taint his or her clean clothes for the sake ofsaving a child that is drowning in a river. In the same way, peopleshould take a certain portion of their wealth and use it for savingthe life of another needy individual that does not have anything toeat. Besides that, going way beyond the normal contribution will bequite helpful in the long-run.
Singer, P. (1972).Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs,229-243.