Family Affluence and Morality Famine, Affluence, Morality by Peter Singer

Peter Singer's article has been reviewed with the intention of understanding his basic ideas about poverty and hunger alleviation. Simultaneously the many criticisms associated with his arguments have also been highlighted with a view to rebutting them and proving the feasibility of Singer's noble ideas.

"Famine, Affluence, Morality" is a famous dissertation scripted by Peter Singer in 1971. It aims to modify the standard Western culture by urging people to perform acts of charity. It articulates that more affluent individuals are morally and ethically obligated to donate as much as they can to the people who need resources the most. It is as such, an essay that is considered a humanitarian doctrine of sorts which authentically argues over the reasons as to why one ought to give more. It is based on the less than favorable conditions of Bangladesh's War refugees of 1971, and uses the circumstances as a case in point for his argument through the essay. (Singer, Famine, Affluence, Morality, 1972)

Peter Singer can, in fact, be credited for having written various similar essays which bring the pertinent topic of poverty alleviation on the fore front. His enthusiasm for philanthropic causes and practical execution of those causes is indeed admirable. His approach is pragmatic and yet sentimental as he urges readers to instill within themselves a moral compass which unfailingly points in the direction that aims to give. He is of the commendable mindset that

As a matter of fact he sardonically mentions in another essay of his titled 'The Solution to World Poverty' that, "The money you will spend at the restaurant could also help save the lives of children overseas! True, you weren't planning to blow $200 tonight, but if you were to give up dining out just for one month, you would easily save that amount. And what is one month's dining out, compared to a child's life? There's the rub." (Singer, 1999)
Coming back to the parent article, Peter Singer proposes a number of basic arguments. He firstly establishes that a deficiency of basic facilities such as food and shelter is intrinsically bad, and surely there is no reason to negate this statement. The provision of basic amenities is every individual's right and as such needs to be fulfilled. Secondly Singer postulates that if it is in our own capacity to prevent something bad from occurring and in preventing it, we will not be compromising our significant ethical values, then we ought to help people around us. In saying so, he emphasizes on the importance of relativity: the ability to compare two situations and establishing genuine cause as to why one should spend on preventing adversities. He gives a simple example whereby he compares the options of getting wet to save a drowning child. One can either choose to act nonchalant and save him or herself the trouble or one can value a child's life more than their temporal comfort and do the morally right thing. But for that it is essentially important to first believe that adversities can in fact be prevented. Singer argues that this conviction in the totalitarian ability to prevent hardship is vital in actually preventing it. Fourthly, Singer…