Peter Singer’s thought-provoking article Famine, Affluence and Morality, he presents argument that place the moral responsibility of ensuring that the poor are adequately provided for by those that are well off. Singer explains that this responsibility is on both the affluent people and the affluenty nations noting that they should give as much as that which by giving would not cause suffering of the same magnitude of the aid that they give. By presenting insightful arguments and counter arguments to opposing ideas, Singer explicitly shows that the failure of affluent people and nations to help the poor is based on the excuses that are created by individuals and not necessarily by the lack of adequate resources. While the amount that an individual can fgreely give without causing significant suffering for themselves and their dependents varies from person to person and from nation to nation, Singer presents valid points that may require the society to fully consider restructuring moral obligation. This essay aims to support Singer’s thesis by examining the moral reasoning behind his argument in the article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” and exploring its implications for our contemporary society.
Peter’s very first argument is that it is not good to die from hunger, lack of shelter or lack of medical care (Singer, 231). This is a very sane argument because for staters, in the hierarchy of needs, food, shelter and clothing are regarded as basic needs. While access to good quality health care is not listed as a basic need, there have been calls to make healthcare free and accessible to every person, and these calls have been made true in some countries like Canada. Allowing other human beings to suffer, knowing that they have no control over what happens to them and also being fully aware that giving excess finances to them could be helpful is an inhumane course of action.
Having noted that it is morally wrong to allow those lacking basic needs and medical care to die due to this lack, this then raises the question as to whose responsibility it is to ensure that these individuals have food, shelter, clothing and medical care. Singer states that it is the responsibility of the nations and people that have the power to help people that are suffering from lack of the sheer necessities for survival (Singer, 231). In this case, the affluent people are those that first, are not suffering a similar plight, and secondly, have enough basic needs for themselves and a little left over. I again agree with this point of view because, since the refugees in Bengal, India cannot rely on themselves or other extremely poor people that do not have enough basic needs for themselves, therefore it is the responsibility of people who have enough to help them without sacrificing something e;lse of comparable moral importance as the suffering in Bengal.
Additionally, while Bengal is far away from the United States of Amerrica, and other affluent nations, there is no doubt that these nations are well aware of the suffering in Bengal due to the amount of attention that the crisis was given. In support of Singer’s argument that people should not discriminate on what nations to offer assistance to and what nations to ignore based on the distance (Singer, 232), because, once they become aware of the suffering that has taken place, they have the mporal responsibility to do their best in combating the common enemy that is suffering. Additionaly, with the many nongovernmental organizations in the world today, it is possible to offer help and support to people living far away because the non-governmental organizations can do it as well as you would have done it.
It is evident that there are obvious disparities between the affluent and the poor nations and people. Both the nations and the people tend to spend a lot on luxuries while human beings in other areas of the world or country stay in poverty. For example, Singer gives an example of how Britain spent 14,750,000 dollars on the people of Bengal while spending 275,000,000 dollars on the Anglo French Concord Project (Singer, 229). In my opinion, most affluent nations and people care about financing their own luxury more than they care about the lives of other people. While it is important to take care of oneself and the basic needs of an individual, the moral responsibility of preserving other people’s lives should outweigh the urge to lead a lavish lifestyle. Letting people starve to death while offering minimal support is a moral sin that the community should seek to condemn. The absence of a moral framework that safeguards human lives is the hugest cause of people letting others starve while they have luxuries of life that they do not even need.
The severity of poverty and suffering requires urgent attention, and not just the 1971 Bengal refugee situation but worldwide poverty and suffering. Looking around in the United States of America, despite the presence of homeless shelters around, it is very common to meet homeless people, an at times, entire families with children. While all this happens., the wealthy people are often trapped in a web of over-consumption, purchasing items that they even do not need. For example, what is the urgency of having three cars while driving down a street with poor people, begging for food and other basic needs. While these luxurious items may make people appear more influential and arouse the admiration of others, it is by no means an act of humanity. Instead, it is an absolute definition of selfishness and an uncouth way of existence. Yet, the society has normalized this so much, that spending excesses on helping the poor is now considered an act of charity.
What the wealthy nations and people do not take into account when choosing lavish lifestyles over helping others is the fact that to them, the money they spend has diminishing value, but to the people that they buy basic needs for, it is a life saver. For example, upon purchasing a new car or piece of cloth that they do not need, the people use money on items that eventually go to waste because, the value of these items depreciate. On the other hand, there is nothing that is more valuable than human life. Therefore, using money to buy food or shelter to a needy person is an invaluable gesture that prevents unnecessary suffering and deaths. However, our society does not prioritize overall wellbeing of every individual. Instead, the community today, built on capitalistic norms and practices cares for the individual wellbeing without caring for the wellbeing of those that can not take care of themselves.
Due to the current societal beliefs, it is not rare for people to be perceived as charitable for giving small percentages of their incomes to charity while squandering the rest on lavish lifestyle. Taking into account Singer’s opinion that the society may praise those who give regardless of how small their contribution is while the society doesnot condemn those that lead lavish lifestyles without caring for the poor, it is evident that the society’s moral fabric needs to be mend (Singer, 236). Therefore, it lies upon all the members to take the drastic step of rewriting the society’s opinion of what is morally wrong and what is not. For example, at the moment, individuals that contribute amounts that are in line with what is required from them are very few. The many who contribute very little and the others who contribute nothing at all leave a huge void to be filled by those that choose to contribute. As a result, there is a heavy burden on those that have taken it upon themselves to help. Additionally, the consequence of the void left by individuals who choose to contribute nothing or little of their fair share is that the amount of poverty and suffering in the world continues to increase significantly.
At this point, it is evident that the only way to end world poverty is through collective responsibility. If affluent nations and people unite, to give to the needy nations and people only that which is enough so that they would not themselves, in an attempt to help others find themselves in a position that is equal or worse than the nations that they are helping. This raises the question of the notion of fair share where, nations after spending their finances on their own basic needs would offer the surplus to the poor in such amounts that each individual contributing to end world poverty contributes a fair share and no one is exploited.
The same notion would apply to individuals in an attempt to end world poverty. While this is a good strategy, it has failed to work over the decades because individuals also choose their individual success and comfort over helping the needy. Although it is morally right to give a fair share, individuals that have an upright moral standing should not fail to support others simply because there are people who are not willing to give their fair share. In fact, in the event that one has surplus, and others have refused to give, it is better to give even the surplus to save lives rather than let people die or be in pain because they are waiting on individuals who do not plan on making a contribution to make a contribution. Therefore, while it would be good if everyone else contributed, the moral responsibility of such contributions rest on individuals and not entire groups.
Singer also addresses the various objections levelled against the idea of helping nations and individuals in need (Singer, 238-247) and while his responses are clear and true, it is important to add the following. For starters, the most importantly changes in the world have been made following drastic measures and therefore, it should not be a hard choice to make especially because it concerns human life. For example in 2019 and 2020, the government had to implement a mandatory lockdown to prevent the unchecked spread of the Covid-19 virus. The national lockdown was not planned for neither was it implemented slowly, instead, it was a rapid change that had to be made. In the same way, the moral standing of individuals on giving to the poor and marginalized should be drastic.
Adfditionally, there are people who argue that aiding struggling people and nations would only create a circle that never ends. This would push people to overwork in an attempt to feed the needy (Singer, 11) and at the same time, there would be no improvements because with all the basic needs provided for, people may choose to become lazy. However, this argument does not put into account all the dynamics that are presented by making it a mporal responsibility to provide for the needy. For starters as Singer stated, helping the needy should not have consequences that cause so much harm that the harm is almost equal to the problem that the help is trying to solve (Singer, 237). Therefore, overworking onself is a detrimental step to take to the physical health, mental health and lifespan of an individual. Instead, it is noble to give only that which can be comfortably given without causing immense pain and suffering to those that are giving. On the second point that aiding the needy may cause them to be lazy, helping them only offers them basic needs. There are other needs that may force them to work hard when the conditions are right to provide for themselves. Additionally, lazy people do not take the moral responsibility of helping those in need.
There are instances where choosing to help has changed the lives of both individuals and entire communities. An example would be the recent aid by philanthropist Mr Beast, that saw 100 wells built in different countries in Africa. Such an initiative by a single individual changed hundreds of thousands of lives in the different countries across Africa that he chose to build the wells. There have been charity organizations that have provided education for refugee children which with time, has enabled them to leave the refugee camps and begin providing for their families. Based on these success stories, it is evident that it is possible to change the world and eliavate worlfd poverty. However, it is impossible to completely end poverty if only few people put in the work to attempt to change the world. If everybody contributed their equal share, then world poverty would be a problem of the past.
Peter Singer’s essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” provides a compelling argument for the moral obligation of affluent individuals to assist those suffering from extreme poverty and famine. Given the fact jhat failing to aid people living in poverty only worsens their living situation especially given the fact that they sire and raise generations in poverty, Petter Singer’s argument should be seriously considered as a means to end world poverty. Ethically speaking, it is very wrong to watch people suffer and die from lack while affluent individuals and nations focus their finances on lavish lifestyles. Therefore, collective responsibility, which requires that we redistribute resources effectively to address poverty is the only viable way to end world poverty. While objections to Singer’s argument may arise, there is no other way that these objections offer that might be employed in ending world poverty as effectively as Singer’s collective responsibility would. In a world were everyone appears to be more concerned about themselves and how much luxurious items they can afford, applying Singer’s philosophy would require intensive rewriting of the moral framework.
Work Cited
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 3, 1972, pp. 229–43.
write