Poverty

In this paper, I will argue that Singer fails to establish that we are morally required to give to charity. In Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he makes the claim that we ought to give up any surplus money we might have and send it to places like Bengal to prevent people from suffering or dying. However, is this really something we are obligated to do?

Singer relies on two important yet controversial principles that help him establish his conclusion. These two principles state that, “…suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad” and that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable more importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (605). The first principle is most likely unable to be refuted as almost everyone can agree that suffering and death has nothing to do with good. Now the second principle can be explained by the example Singer gives that if you were in a situation where you were walking past a pond and see a child drowning you ought to pull the child out resulting in wet or muddy clothes, which in no means outweighs the death of a child. In other words, preventing something bad will always compensate ruining a materialistic thing or spending money on something insignificant.

Relying on these two principles helps Singer establish his conclusion at the end of his argument. He first states that there are people in East Bengal suffering and dying from lack of food and shelter, which is followed by his first principle. He then continues on by stating that we can easily save 250 dollars by skipping on trips to the movies, buying new clothes, or enjoying a nice dinner out, which is followed by his second principle. Mentioning his two basic principles at the beginning without any additional statements allows the principles to be clear and irrefutable. Doing this allowed no room for objection in his argument, therefore, making his conclusion valid. However, Singer's conclusion is simply not convincing.

Ethics has been defined as the theory or the science of moral behavior of human beings in society. Like other Greek words ending in the same suffix, such as politics, technology, ethics refers to a practical activity, so is knowledge of practice. In addition to this anthropological nature, ethics provides an ontological nature, since it deals with the positioning of the individual in life, which involves reflection, appreciation of values and choice. Ethics and morality are sometimes treated as synonymous. However, despite the proximity between the two, should be specified that are not the same. Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of our Traditional Ethics by Peter Singer has an excellent, accessible and usefully structured mixing narrative with argument, and then restating implications/conclusions again. However, the main things include omissions of action that differs from overt actions. Moreover, what metric should we judge being alive' and which capacities should be valued. As usual, comparisons to animals are initially ...