Morality can be evaluated in three different ways. An object or its state of affair can either be good or bad. An event can either be right or wrong. An agent can either be praiseworthy or blameworthy. The argument “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” by Peter Singer suggests that the agent which is praiseworthy for giving to charity but not blameworthy for not giving to charity is wrong, and the agent which does not give to charity should be blameworthy instead, establishing charity as a duty (Singer 635).
Peter Singer opens his argument by introducing the reader to a famine in Bengal setting up his first premise that starvation is bad (Singer 631-632). He then suggests for his second premise that 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. He then points out that there are flaws in our way of thinking (Singer 632). The socially acceptable standard is that we would offer help to one who is physically near us, simply because of the close proximity. The flaw lies in the fact that we are less motivated to help someone who is further away, despite that person’s deeper need for assistance. This sets up the third premise that there is suffering in the world (Singer 633).
In respect to the famine, Singer says that if everyone donated five pounds, then there would be sufficient funds to help relieve those suffering in Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical attention. But in reality, not everyone will give all the money that needs to be given. Since not everyone donates what they should, the people that do donate should give all they can to help, not just the minimum. If people donate or take action then they can prevent suffering, thus setting up the fourth premise (Singer 634).
Singer says the way we think about charity needs to be changed. For example, if money is given to charities, then the person who donated the money is considered praiseworthy. The idea that charity is supererogatory-- it is charitable to give but it is also acceptable not to give-- needs to be changed. The problem is that people condemn those who deviate from the moral “norm,” but it is perfectly okay to live in luxury while other people are starving. Rather than society’s accepted view on charity, Singer makes a good suggestion that a person who indulges in luxury and money, and does not give aid to those in need, should be considered blameworthy (Singer 635).
Critics might also point out Singer’s idea conflict with utilitarianism. For instance, a utilitarian would work hard to produce the greatest amount of happiness over any sort of pain. In contrast, Singer points out that this is the real world and that simply does not apply. If everyone worked to insure pleasure, then of course there would be less pain, but in reality, there are wrong actions in the world that lead to bad events. Also, if a person works so hard to achieve happiness that they injure themselves, then they can not work anymore to achieve the greatest happiness and thus become a dependant themselves (Singer 636-637).
Singer addresses the issues of why people do not donate. He says sometimes people believe that it is the government who should aid people in need, but in the end, he says it is the individual’s responsibility as well as the government’s; there should be both public and private contributions. Another reason people do not donate is because they believe the society in need might become dependant upon aid; for example, people being feed today might starve next year because the funds run out. The question of “how much” is also asked often, and according to Singer, one should give reasonably because if too much were to be given then it might damage our own economy, leading to a negative effect. In this instance, population control measures are primary to controlling starvation because Earth can only feed so many people (Singer 636-638).
The argument is easy to read and states its ideas clearly. It considers objections and offers responses to those objections as well as proposes a weaker and stronger version of the argument. The argument appeals to compassion for human life and to what is morally correct. Since guilt is an implication of a wrong act, then not giving is morally wrong (Raley). By making someone feel guilty for indulging themselves, Singer shows that donating is really duty rather than a charity.
The argument takes such a strong stance for helping starving people that it grabs the attention of the reader. By suggesting that people should give all they have to the verge of starving themselves seems absurd, but it makes people realize how much they take advantage of a seemingly luxurious life (Raley). Sure it might be crazy to give until you reach the “level of marginal utility,” but it is even crazier to let people starve. Since most people would disregard such a strong stance, Singer purposely suggests a more moderate version which is more acceptable.
The only objectionable point in Singer’s argument is how much to give. Singer says we should “give away enough to ensure that the consumer society, dependent as it is on people spending on trivia rather than giving to famine relief, would slow down and perhaps disappear entirely.” He goes on to explain why this is a good thing but one can not help but notice how bad this is. The foundations of capitalism are rooted in self-interest and consuming goods. Most of the industrialized nations are capitalistic, meaning people work to better themselves. If it were not for a person’s individual goals to better one’s self and gain as much material wealth as possible, then we would not have the society we have. If a person would give up all his extra money to famine relief, then there would be no driving force to actually make that extra money. In a perfect Marxist society where everyone would be working for the improvement of humanity, that idea might work, but in reality, humans are self-interested and too greedy for that system to work.
Singer’s argument seems sound in the idea that people should give as much as they can to help others. It is not a perfect world, and there are people out there that need help. But also remember, it is not a good idea to help and let them become dependent upon that help. The people that need help must be taught how to help themselves.
Singer establishes a firm argument that people are morally obligated to prevent as least some suffering by personally taking action. He establishes that starvation is bad, people should help those in need, there is suffering in the world, and suffering can be prevented; therefore, people are morally obligated to help, since help would relieve suffering (Singer 631-639). Singer makes a person feel guilty for not donating, thus making charity into an obligation.
Submitted By: Jarred Breaux
References
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Reason and Responsibility. Ed. Joel Feinberg et al. 12th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.
Raley, Matthew. “Some Moral Concerns Regarding Famine Relief.” 8 April 2005.
