Peter Singer Explication of Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

Peter Singer's objective in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is to raise activism in the general public with regard to ending famine and conditions of abject poverty. The focus of the article concerns the public's need to take greater action. His argument stems from his view that "At the individual level, people have, with very few exceptions, not responded to the situation in any significant way" (1). Thus, people have a moral obligation to assist those who are impoverished, and even those in remote locations should not be excluded from aid.

A main focus of Singer's article concerns moral utility, and exactly how much people are morally obligated to provide to those who are impoverished. Singer argues that there has traditionally been an overly severe distinction between duty and charity; people are quick to fulfill their duties, while charity is viewed as activities that are conducted at less frequent intervals and those that one is not required to perform. A person will go to work to perform their duty, but they will not donate even a paltry sum of money to refugees in Bengal. Singer notes that "The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn" (4). Activities that have traditionally fallen under the umbrella of charity should now be viewed as duty.

One of the questions raised is exactly how much people should give, and Singer argues that the premise of moral utility should apply. He invokes the premise of marginal utility, or the belief that...

To this end, people will support the developing world while at the same time ensuring that they do not become impoverished themselves. Such a framework would effectively eliminate the concept of being affluent, since wealth involves having money in excess of what is needed.
A counterargument to Singer's position is that Singer frames personal self-interest as being harmful; while Singer abhors self-interest, people have a responsibility toward being self-interested in order to remain successful and have enough money to even contribute money to the developing world. Anyone who is not self-interested will have severe difficulty succeeding in cultures that are as progress driven as those in Western civilization. Singer conflates action with virtue to an unreasonable degree, suggesting that because people do not donate to charity, they are inherently immoral. Singer would likely respond by stating that self-interest should not be regarded as precluding personal success, although that would be a difficult stance to support.

Another counterargument is that because poverty exists locally, people must help their compatriots before helping those overseas. Singer addresses this point in the article, noting that "Just because someone is located far away, doesn't mean they're less worthy of aid" (3). This argument is sound on an…