Famine, Affluence, and Morality By Peter Singer

Famine, Affluence, and Morality By Peter Singer

The author is said to argue that if an entity has the capability of eradicating bad before it can induce harm and that too without inflicting harm to the stakeholders around then the entity has an obligation of doing it. He further states that countries that are doing well and are leading politically, economically, technologically, socially, environmentally and legally are bound to provide assistance and do whatever they can to the best of their abilities to help the needy against preventable evils, famine, lack of shelter as well as malnutrition in the poorer countries. The countries helping the poorer one cannot by any means be termed as a charitable gesture but a moral and ethical duty towards the deprived ones without inflicting harm to the citizens of their country. He further states that the affluent countries should help the poorer countries and that it is not an option to choose from since it is an obligation. He also states that it does not matter where the evil acts are going on or whose suffering it and the kind of strategic actions that others might be implementing when it comes to taking care of such poor countries. The author also states that the argument he is stating has deep-rooted problems for not only morally charged conceptual scheme and it is from there where we develop a line amidst charity and justice and the kind of life that exists which in majority is taken for granted. Simultaneously he also denies that there is any soundness when it comes to this view (Singer, 1972, pp. 229-243).

The three counter arguments that Singer's position that he addresses in his article, and then indicate Singer's responses to those counter-arguments are:

Singer's Position

The higher level ...