Explanation of the Principles and Concepts
For millennia, philosophers have been searching for the truth of ethics by making new observations. Modern research is focused on the search for ethical inquiries in the practical activity of a people, reducing the metaphysical part. Among contemporary philosophers of this trend, one should especially highlight Peter Albert David Singer, an Australian philosopher and professor at Princeton and Melbourne universities. The current paper is devoted to analyzing Singer’s article called Famine, Affluence, and Morality.
The formation of Singer’s beliefs was facilitated by the utilitarian ethical theory, according to which the criterion for moral evaluation is exclusively the consequence of behavior and not its compliance with any rules or obligations. Right action in any field, be it law, politics, or human activity, will be considered if it leads to the best consequences. At the same time, it is necessary to treat the same interests in the same way, regardless of who exactly represents them.
One of the central ideas discussed by the author is the concept of effective altruism, which can change the idea of ethical life and give donations the motivation to follow the new principles of charity. Singer considers psychological and social barriers and humanity’s evolutionary history, which, in combination or individually, prevent doing charity correctly. The philosopher explains the mechanism of ethical thinking, which is based on the ability to put oneself in the place of others. Ethical thinking tells people to choose the first option in a situation of choice between help and passing. This mechanism does not work for the majority when it comes to helping unknown people from developing countries (Vaughan 662). In this case, the victim seems vague, and a small donation, by all accounts, will not change the global problem.
Singer adheres to utilitarian traditions, which are focused on developing and updating a general conceptual framework of morality. Moreover, this direction directly contributes to changes in the state of affairs in the world. Singer draws readers’ attention to the fact that modern infrastructure development has significantly transformed our daily lives and led to changes in our moral position (Vaughan 664). Humans find themselves almost equally responsible for preventing evils from occurring in the world, and a way of life considered acceptable in developed countries can no longer be morally justified.
The second premise connects the moral obligation and the possibility of its fulfillment. The conclusion Singer arrives at is that the morally is obligatory (Vaughan 665). More precisely, as Singer notes, this conclusion involves a change in the very conceptual framework of our moral reasoning. This principle has impartiality familiar to utilitarianism: it eliminates distinctions for personal responsibility between cases with different spatial distances of those who should be helped and issues in which there are different numbers of other agents that can prevent suffering. Both of these differences Singer refers to are Fpsychological, not moral.
The author accepts the suffering and death of people caused by poverty is a preventable evil. As a result, he highlights that people must do their best to help eliminate and prevent this evil. Therefore, people must donate some of the money left over from meeting basic needs to alleviate poverty. Moreover, people are obliged to do this regardless of the behavior and decisions of others. Singer’s first important idea mentioned in the article can be summed up as follows: if we can prevent something undeniably wrong without sacrificing something morally significant, we should do it.
Discussion
Singer offers his most famous analogy with a child drowning in a shallow pond and a passer-by, whose place anyone can be. The child appears here not because the life of a child and an adult has a different weight but because, according to Singer, no one will argue that children themselves are to blame for their poverty. The child’s proximity and the realization of the minor damage that saving him will entail triggers a quick and predictable emotional reaction that the lack of assistance is unacceptable (Vaughan 661). This intuitive response rooted in us is an evolutionary acquisition. This automatic mode needs to be supplemented and corrected by a manual method of rational reasoning that requires us to impartially assess the need and effectiveness of the help that may be necessary to provide a person elsewhere in the world. Everyone who can somehow influence the disaster, a person or a state, bears a responsibility for what is happening. To live in wealth and not donate to prevent the consequences of extreme poverty, according to Singer, is tantamount to committing an immoral act.
Singer’s position, despite the possible critics’ inquiries, is correct. The philosopher’s primary argument is that society’s central problem is the lack of rational morality postulates. The changes in this area are the first step in the way of overcoming poverty. One person can make a difference when others think in the same way. However, it is also vital to act, disregarding other’s people decisions.
Impact of Singer’s Position
I have always considered the topic of charity as an unsolvable one. From my perspective, this issue results from the well-spread in today’s society capitalism market tendency which affects people’s morality and values formation. I have always been among those people who believed that my small help could not change the situation. However, the ideas of Stinger and the approach of practical ethics helped me to reconsider the situation. It is not vital how a significant amount of help is received. Helping is critical in showing the moral will to change what is wrong in society.
I was extremely astonished by the idea that charity should not be considered a donation act. Controversially, the philosopher believes that donations for those in need should be the ethical norm, not something special for which people should be praised. This only natural to help others when having their primary needs met. Only through such a problem perception can society address the issue of poverty.
It is also worth mentioning that by analyzing the article, I realized that only people from well-developed countries could address the issue of world poverty. Deeply moral behavior is made possible by the alienation of people from each other when each person can afford to disagree with any number of people and at the same time not be excluded from society. Meeting basic needs allows people to discuss ethical issues and think about others. Therefore, it is the responsibility of not only governmental bodies but also of each person not living in poverty to put effort into addressing the poverty issues. Thus, the article and position of Stinger change my perception of the ethics of charity. It requires additional considerations and more thought to implement significant changes in my life. However, even with the changes, the perception of poverty and charity is vital because this is the starting point of positive developments.
Work Cited
Vaughan, Lewis. Doing Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues 4th Edition. W.W. Norton & Company, 2016.