Family Affluence and Morality Famine, Affluence, Morality

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 money spent on luxuries is synonymous to money wasted.

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 takes a roundabout approach in proving why we should help out more: He says that nothing is of greater moral value than making someone's life easier and alleviating their hardship, and so it is a duty instead of a choice to prevent adversities of all kinds. And finally Singer presents his conclusion by saying that ultimate technique to prevent various deficiencies from occurring is to give maximally, or give more than the current quantity.

(Singer, Famine, Affluence, Morality, 1972) There are many criticisms that Singer has had to face in terms of his proposals. The first criticism is based on the grounds that the act of charity in itself is not an obligation and is only considered charity in the first place because it is not borne out of duty.

Singer simply replies that for the betterment of the Western ethical civilization, people perhaps need to reorder their view of charity and think of it as something so inherent in nature that it becomes an unconstitutional duty for every individual. In saying so singer proposes that there are duties and then there are values; the only way to view charity is to view it as a value for then the fulfillment of a duty becomes automatic.

The second criticism in store for Singer's sanguine views is that he requires everyone to do a great deal to prevent adversities and some of those limits may be considered overboard. Singer once again rebuts this apprehension when he says that one always needs to push oneself in order to do what is moral. According to Peter Singer, morality quintessentially requires that one must be willing to go overboard to give as much as they can to contribute to the betterment of people.

Moving on, the esteemed essay earns yet another counterargument saying that provision of relief funds is not the ultimate solution and as a matter of fact it accrues the other problems of.