Peter Singer: Morality, Affluence, and Famine

Peter Singer: Morality, Affluence, and Famine

1. what he tries to do in this paper:

   • show we have a very strong ethical obligation to sacrifice our welfare to a significant degree to help others
   • show that traditional ethical theory and the view of our obligations and distinctions it makes (charity vs duty) are unjustified.
   • why it is relevant:
     • environmental problems stem from poverty and singers goal is to end poverty

2. singer's argument:

   • 1) suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad. (this is uncontroversial)
     • 2) if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. (almost uncontroversial)
       • CONCLUSION: We should be donating much of our expendable income to famine relief efforts.
         • implications of this conclusion:
           • 1. distance makes no ethical difference
             • 2. being uniquely able to provide assistance vs being one of many is not an ethically salient distinction
               • 3. this argument suggests there is no defensible distinction between charity and duty
           • arguments against this conclusion:
             • 1. this argument requires too drastic a revision of our moral perspective. people just do not reason ethically in this way
               • singers response: what people do reason and should reason are two distinct issues. just because people were racist back in the day doesn't mean their reasoning was morally correct
               • 2. the conclusion of this argument requires us to be constantly working to help others, to the point of decreasing our own happiness. this is unacceptable
                 • singers response: being ethical is difficult. that it isn't easy is no argument against it and the obligations revealed in this argument
                 • 3. food aid is a governmental obligation
                   • 4. giving famine relief would merely postpone starvation in the future given overpopulation
                     • singers response: just because something might happen, doesn't mean you should ignore suffering in the present.
                     • singers response: in order to stop the cycle of poverty, you have to give people the basic needs of food water and shelter