Assessing Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, and Morality



Assessing Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, and Morality

This discussion will explain Singer's goal and then proceed to present counter-arguments to Singer's position. This will involve summarizing Singer's responses to those counter-arguments and defining Singer's concept of marginal utility, and explaining how this concept relates to his argument. The discussion will compare how the ideas of duty and charity are different in Singer's proposed world as opposed to how they are currently used in our society. The discussion will conclude by converging towards a personal response to Singer and thereby develop an argument relating to Singer's position.

Around one billion and four hundred million people live in poverty today. Around 2 billion and seven hundred million humans live on less than $2 per day. Six million children die of hunger per year or as a result of diseases of poverty. At any given time, twelve million people in Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda roam trails and roads, or simply sit on the floor, with nothing to eat and drink - almost starving - especially children and the elderly (the most vulnerable). But there are also many people absolutely rich today. We are able to help the poor without much sacrifice (Singer, 1972). About the latest crisis of drought in East Africa, Oxfam, an NGO relief asks £ 25, 50 or 100 pounds to help. 25 pounds can quench the thirst of 175 people for a day. 50 pounds will feed a family for a fortnight. Europe and USA spend 30 billion in perfumes and food for pets. The world spends 780 billion in military spending every year! UN estimates say that about 28 billion dollars a year would meet the needs of food, sanitation and education of those living in poverty.

Peter Singer, one of the living philosophers ...