Peter Singer "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"

Within the essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, philosopher Peter Singer addresses the issue of poverty and the problems surrounding the lack of help from the wealthy by taking a general utilitarian perspective (the perspective that people, or society as a whole, must act in such a way as to promote the maximized well-being for all individuals of that society). Singer argues that affluent individuals are morally obligated to give until they reach a level of “marginal utility”, the level at which giving more would cause as much suffering to oneself or dependents as would be relieved (far more than what is considered normal in Western cultures). One of Singer’s main arguments is that if someone has the means to reduce any sort of suffering without considerable reduction of their own well-being or of the well-being of others, it would be considered immoral not to do so. Moreover, Singer stresses that it is morally wrong to know such anguish is occurring and not do anything about it, regardless of the proximity between you and the suffering, and regardless of whether or not other individuals are helping to fight the cause. Singer’s argument for an obligation to assist, as stated by Professor Adam Moore, is as follows:

P1. 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.

P2. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad.

P3. It is within our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance by giving to famine relief.

C4. We ought, morally, to give to famine relief up to the point at which we must sacrifice something of comparable moral significance.

The first premise supporting Singer’s argument discussing preventing evil from happening without considerable sacrifice can be further emphasized when evaluating the...