Controversial Elements in Famine, Affluence and Morality

Introduction

Peter Singer in the year of 1972 wrote an essay on "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" which was published by Philosophy and Public Affairs. Being ironic to the affluent people, Singer considered from moral's perspective affluent are obligated to help the needy using their resources. The inspiration for the writing had been the starvation of Bangladesh Liberation War refugees, and Peter through his essay provided a solution how starvation in Bangladesh and in other parts of the world can be prevented. The perspective of Peter Singer has been widely echoed as the ethical viewpoint of the Western people. Scholars at different point of time studies different perspective of the ethical viewpoint of Singer, but handful studies are available focusing on the presence of controversial elements in the essay. The following discussion in this regard, will attempt to identify the controversial elements in “Famine, Affluence and Morality”.

Summary of the Essay

The essay can be summarised on one key argument that if people have wealth and resources enough with which they can provide support to end sufferings like starvation (regardless of the geographical location of the needy people) than morally they are obligated to do so.

Controversial Element

Despite the fact that United Nations, developed countries like United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and others all provide aids for social causes through various channels and organisation, but Peter Singer attribute the amount of aid inefficient to fulfil the needs of people who are homeless, starving or undernourished due to lack of foods. Using event of Bangladesh as its base for argument, Singer claim that rich nations could have done more and better instead what they did. Mentioning the aid provided by Australia to Bangladesh Singer claim that “Australia's total amount given, from all sources, now stands at about £65,000,000. The estimated cost of keeping the refugees alive for one year is £464,000,000. Most of the refugees have now been in camps for more than six months” (Singer, 403). From the state budget the aid seems quite generous, but Australia could have done more if they would have realised the nature, extent and seriousness of the problem. Peter was basically pointing out towards the wealthy even middle class families, that if all of them have donated merely £5 dollars plus to the funds provided by state, than several lives could have been saved. Peter claim that people should demonstrate responsibility in a manner that they would have responded if similar event took place in their neighbourhood, which he express as “It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away” (Singer 231-232, 237). The irony of his words however can be extended to the local people who have stakes in these countries, like companies, businessman and others. Peter believes that giving away a certain percentage of the profit in charity could never affect the financial health of a ...