Peter Singer Explication of Peter Singer's "Famine,

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 it is necessary to give as much as one can without harming their personal well-being. 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 intellectual level, but ignores the fact that people have pride in their communities and as such, are naturally driven toward supporting the needs in their home area. A final counterargument is that it is difficult for people to determine how much they can comfortably donate. Singer acts as though people's lives are static and that they can easily discern how much they can provide, and this is untrue.

Singer would respond by stating that people do not apply the same logic while shopping for consumer goods, but it is a natural reaction to purchase the same products and status markers as one's fellow citizens. Much of what Singer sees as consumer excess is actually necessary for existing within one's culture. Singer's writes persuasively in a number of areas, and indeed the immense global poverty reflects the need for the developed world to provide more support.

Moreover, in the Postscript the author issues the significant point that the only countries that should be supported are those that are actively involved in targeting overpopulation. Providing aid to a country that does nothing to end its poverty would do little more than staving off future poverty. However, while overpopulation is perhaps the foremost reason why there is such worldwide poverty, the author writes as though it is easily possible to determine whether a country is working to end population growth.

Such a distinction would be arbitrary, in the same way that the concept of marginal utility (the amount a person can donate without causing personal injury) is arbitrary. In actuality, people do not know which countries are actively working to end poverty and which are not. Another.