After having outlined Peter Singer’s and Onora O’Neill’s positions on what human moral obligations are, I will argue in favor of Peter Singer. The first reason for this is that he is less demanding than O’Neill. Singer makes his position clear from the start of the text. It is evident that he is appalled by the fact of the famine in Bengal. He is also critical of the way developed economies react to the crisis when he writes that it “cannot be justified” (Singer 152). However, he also acknowledges that people have different viewpoints: “people can hold all sorts of eccentric positions” (Singer 153). In comparison, O’Neill is more strict because he seems to assume that morality is universal. He invokes Kant’s Supreme Principle of Morality and applies it to every living person (O’Neill 94). At no point does O’Neill suggest that other interpretations of morality are possible. Singer appeals to me more because he acknowledges the diversity of human opinions and tries to convince others by using arguments, while O’Neill assumes Kant’s philosophy as a universal code of conduct thus disregarding pluralism.
The second reason why I support Singer lies in his reliance on respect. Singer’s rhetoric shows his empathy towards the hardships of the Bengalis. What is more important is that he does not show preference towards Bengalis specifically. As Singer writes, “it makes no moral difference whether the person I help is a neighbour’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away (153). In contrast, O’Neill concentrates on virtues that drive certain behavior: “we should look at maxims and not at how much misery or happiness the act is likely to produce” (95). The reason why I have a problem with this approach is that it dehumanizes people. In essence, as long as the maxim is virtuous, it is irrelevant what happens to others. Ultimately, Singer is more convincing because he respects all people equally, while O’Neill prioritizes behavior principles regardless of whether he helps people or not. The reason why I think respect is a better foundation for morality is that it allows to acknowledge the complexity of people’s life circumstances and treat all people as equally important.
The third reason I prefer Singer is his ability to make a bigger impact than O’Neill. Singer relies on contemporary facts that were relevant when he wrote the essay. He gives an overview of the amount of assistance given by the governments of Great Britain, Australia, and France and the amount of assistance needed (Singer 152). He then proceeds to outline the actions done by governments of the developed nations to alleviate suffering and states their insufficiency. Every subsequent deliberation of morality further is used to support his original point – the affluent should help the starving. In comparison, O’Neill relies on abstract situations that may or may not happen. O’Neill first provides moral guidance and then some real-life examples, for instance, when he explains what it means “to use someone as a mere means” (O’Neill 95). What is more obscuring is that he identifies when an action is morally wrong – in the moneylender’s deception’s case – but does not explain what should be done (O’Neill 95). Altogether, Singer is more appealing because his philosophy is directed at solving real-life issues, while O’Neill seems to be more interested in promoting Kant’s philosophy.
Works Cited
O’Neill, Onora. “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics.” Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, edited by Steven M. Cahn, Oxford University Press, 2020, pp. 94-97.
Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology, edited by Steven M. Cahn, Oxford University Press, 2020, pp. 151-160.