Famine, Affluence, and Morality Essay

In vocalisers article Famine, Affluence, and Morality, his main goal is to get the read across that there ar heap in the developing world that argon starving and have a lack of healthc be and the lack of shelters. He argues about how affluent countries react to the issues like Bengal and the centering they look at the moral issue surrounding it. He also argues that the way of livelihood is taken for granted by affluence people. The first counter- contrast in the article is the view that numbers do make a residue ( utterer, 1971).It refers to if every affluent person would constitute 5 dollars to the Bengal Relief line that m unmatchabley would add up. Therefore, there is no reason to have to allow for more bills than anyone else in the same position. vocaliser argues that this is based dour a hypothetical situation. He, but, says in the article that there is no way for that work since no one would cash in ones chips more than 5 dollars thence there would non be en ough money to provide food, shelter, and medical examination care. He says by giving more than 5 dollars he go away be able to end more hurt.The second counter demarcation people do not judge the way Singer suggested they should. numerous people tend to keep their judgments to themselves un slight(prenominal) they go overboard, step out bounds, and dash some type of moral code. The example that Singer uses is taking individual elses property. Most people tend not to look spoiled on owning expensive items sooner of giving to people less fortunate. Singers response to this argument is, unless that principle is rejected, or the arguments are shown to be unsound, I think the conclusion must stand however unsung it appears.It might, nevertheless, be interesting to consider why our society, and most other societies, do judge differently from the way I have suggested they should. (Singer, 1972) At what guide do people draw the line at what should be through and what is good sav e not art objectdatory. Singer brings up a point that, In a society which held that no man should have more than enough while others have less than they need. (Utilitarian Philosophers, NDG) Many people are influenced by the people well-nigh them. If people are giving less than people around them are likely to give less, but if people give more than people around him are likely to give more.The third counter argument is the difference between duty and charity. The argument is that in some utilitarian theory that everyone should work full succession to increase happiness over misery. Meaning that, if people work more, are paid more money than people would not be as miserable, many people say money cannot buy happiness. Singers reaction to this counter- argument is that, we ought to be preventing as much suffering as we can without sacrificing something else of comparable moral importance. (Utilitarian Philosophers, NDG)Singer defines marginal utility as the level at which giving more would result in suffering in his dependents or himself. The meaning of this is that one would limit their material possessions to less than nothing. He further explains that he proposed a more moderate displacement of marginal utility, that we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant, for one might hold that to reduce oneself and ones family to this level is to driving something significantly bad to happen. (Singer, 1972) It relates to his arguments because he insists that we need to limit our material possessions to that of the Bengal refugees. Singer compares the distinction between duty and charity as not an patrician line to draw. However Singer gives an example as this, The charitable man may be praised, but the man who is not charitable is not condemned. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves, warm but to look well-dressed we are not providing for any important need.We would not be sacrificing anything si gnificant if we were to continue to wear our old clothes, and give the money to famine relief. By doing so, we would be preventing another person from starving. (Singer, 1972) In other words, instead of buying expensive worthless stuff for yourself giving the extra money would benefit more people and make it more charitable however, you do not give the extra money to charity you are not looked at any differently. I do agree with some move of his article, however, I disagree with most of it. First, I think that his article make love off with a major attitude in my mind.He does however make some good points like the way he duologue about how some people are influenced by the people around them. Another good point that he made is it should not offspring how far the distance is wither they are in the same neighborhood as you are thousands of miles away. I do not agree with how he insinuates that the richer you are the more you should give. I believe that a person should give as m uch as he or she wants. I also believe that a person giving charity should not be held at a higher pedestal then someone that is not able to give to charity.