In his article, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer focuses on a topic that is essential for the whole world. The author considers famine, refugee crisis, and ways to combat these issues from a philosophical point of view. Singer takes a comprehensive approach to the problem since he introduces assumptions, justifies them, and addresses possible opposing arguments. Thus, Singer’s treatment of the topic is convincing, and I will submit evidence from additional sources and personal thoughts to support it and demonstrate that people should engage in helping others.
Singer’s central message is to explain that individuals should provide monetary assistance to those in need. The author mentions that “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” (Singer 231). Even though he considers East Bengal as an example of an area where people died from the lack of food and service, there is no doubt that the argument can be applied to other crises. This statement can be considered adequate and morally correct, but it is still necessary to comment on its justification, and the following paragraphs will introduce this information.
The author relies on logical reasoning and comparisons to prove his point of view. Firstly, Singer explains that people should help others irrespective of the distance between them, and the comparison of refugees from a different country and a drowning child nearby is a suitable example (231). It demonstrates that it is morally wrong to refrain from helping others because they are from different countries. Secondly, the author draws readers’ attention to the fact that an individual should help when they are the only person who is witnessing the problem and when there are many witnesses (Singer 232). The same example with the drowning child justifies this statement. There is no doubt that such a thought-through approach to the text results in the fact that it affects impacts readers.
Simultaneously, the writer conveys a significant idea when he attempts to clarify the distinction between duty and charity. While commenting on it, Singer introduces the concept of supererogation that denotes an act that “would be good to do, but not wrong not to do” (235). It seems that the term can be a perfect explanation of why people refrain from helping others. Since society does not tend to consider a failure to help those in need a morally wrong act, many individuals are not willing to be involved in this activity. Heyd supports this statement and admits that charity is among the most typical examples of supererogation (par. 51). Simultaneously, this finding demonstrates that some people can help others to nurse their own pride or gain popularity. In this case, the problem is addressed, but the self-seeking interests may not be good. Thus, one could suppose that social norms and attitudes toward charity should be changed to ensure that more individuals are engaged. It is possible to suggest that if helping others were a duty, fewer problems would exist.
Singer also offers valuable comments to explain to what extent people should engage in helping behaviors. As has been mentioned above, it is necessary to avoid sacrificing something that is morally significant. It means that a person should ensure that their attempts to help some people will not create problems for others. This statement requires explanation, and Haines’s article in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a suitable example. The author introduces a controversial situation when a person wants to give money to a charity fund, and they decide to steal it from their grandmother (Haines par. 51). On the one hand, this action will create benefits for society and people who are in need. On the other hand, the grandmother will be upset and suffer economic losses. Haines clarifies that this comparison reveals the connection between consequentialism and common sense (par. 51). It seems that Singer’s words about sacrifice address the given distinction, meaning that people should not help by creating problems for others.
Since it has been mentioned that it is wrong to use others’ resources, the author also provokes readers to understand how much help they can provide. In this case, Singer introduces the concept of a level of marginal utility (241). It indicates that individuals should give as much help as to ensure that the remaining resources are sufficient to satisfy their or their dependents’ basic needs. Even though this statement is challenging for some people, there is some ground behind it. When people do not tend to satisfy their spontaneous desires or buy luxurious items, they have more resources to help others. The author explains that modern individuals should draw attention to meet this requirement because globalization has made all people throughout the world a single nation.
Furthermore, Singer offers valuable comments to justify that people should not refrain from helping because they believe that it is a government-level issue. The author explains that individuals’ increased interest in international affairs can become a signal for high-ranking officials to allocate more resources to address the situation (Singer 239). However, one should be cautious not to lay all the responsibility on people. It denotes that individuals and governments are in a similar position that they should involve in providing assistance, while it is not reasonable to hope that others will do it. Thus, the author demonstrates that understanding responsibility is necessary to address the famine internationally.
It is also reasonable to present my personal response to the article under consideration. I am sure that the topic is essential for the modern world where there is a significant gap between developing and developed nations. However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that some of the author’s arguments are radical. For example, it refers to the concept of a level of marginal utility. I understand that the thought that people should give as many of their resources as possible to others can be provoking. However, it is necessary to understand that limiting one’s desires is justified when it leads to overall advantages for the whole world. Thus, it seems that the author’s main argument is that people should change their states of mind to solve the famine problem.
In conclusion, the paper has presented a critical reflection on and response to the article by Peter Singer. His work focuses on famine and comments on how the issue should be addressed. The paper has demonstrated that the author offers convincing and reliable arguments to prove that people from developed countries should be actively involved in assisting the nations in need. Singer’s article made me understand that it is not reasonable to ignore other’s problems because everyone is responsible for making the globalized world better.
References
Haines, William. “Consequentialism.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. n.d. Web.
Heyd, David. “Supererogation.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019. Web.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 3, 1972, pp. 229-243.