Peter Singer Famine Summary
In his work called “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer raises the theme of morality in the modern fast-changing world by addressing socio-economic problems of East Bengal. According to Singer’s main argument, there is no justification to richer nations for not helping the countries such as Bangladesh. Generally, I agree with the statement provided. It is well-known that dying from famine is bad, wherever you live and with whatever social, economic and political problems you are facing. Also, proximity and distance are not morally relevant, due to the globalization, which makes a big contribution in the development of worldwide communication and transaction systems. In fact, the argument at nation level also can be considered as analogical for the individual level. For instance, as the philosopher claims, it should
…show more content…
Besides, I have an opportunity to spend this money on watching a movie with my friends and taking pleasure from this action. Suppose that I will behave from morality and will not go to the cinema. Then, taking into the consideration Singer’s moral principles, every time I will have $10, I ought to make a decision whether to give it to the charity organizations or using for my own needs. The point is that the choice will repeat to oblige me to reduce my income level till I will became poor. Therefore, according to the Singer’s Principle, there is no significant difference between raising $10 for charity and helping a drowning child, as the philosopher claims that duty and charity is the same. However, in the modern society no one ought to raise his income for assisting someone who is suffering in another country, and no one will be penalized for not doing this action. To put in a nutshell, distinction of charity and obligation is eliminated and creates misunderstanding of the main
Besides, I have an opportunity to spend this money on watching a movie with my friends and taking pleasure from this action. Suppose that I will behave from morality and will not go to the cinema. Then, taking into the consideration Singer’s moral principles, every time I will have $10, I ought to make a decision whether to give it to the charity organizations or using for my own needs. The point is that the choice will repeat to oblige me to reduce my income level till I will became poor. Therefore, according to the Singer’s Principle, there is no significant difference between raising $10 for charity and helping a drowning child, as the philosopher claims that duty and charity is the same. However, in the modern society no one ought to raise his income for assisting someone who is suffering in another country, and no one will be penalized for not doing this action. To put in a nutshell, distinction of charity and obligation is eliminated and creates misunderstanding of the main