Peter Singer - “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”



Peter Singer - “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

In “Famine. Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer stresses the possible revisionary implications of accepting utilitarianism as a guide to conduct. He does not actually espouse utilitarianism in this essay, rather a cousin of utilitarianism. He observes, in the world today, there are many people suffering a lot, leading miserable lives, on the margin, prone to calamity whenever natural disasters or wars or other cataclysmic events strike. Many millions of people live on an income equivalent to one dollar a day or less (Wellman 2002).

Singer proposes two principles a stronger one he favors, a weaker one he offers as a fallback. The Strong Singer Principle: “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” The Weak Singer Principle: “If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.” Consider the Strong Singer Principle. He explains that “by without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance” I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent.”

The relation of this principle to act utilitarianism is as follows: Singer's principle amounts to asserting act utilitarianism except for (1) setting aside the demand to violate moral constraints when doing so would promote more good overall and (2) limiting itself to requiring that one prevent the most bad that one can and not requiring that one positively bring about good if nothing bad is preventable by one's actions (Pojman 2003). Singer is affirming, One ought morally ...