Notes

In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, the author Peter Singer tries to convince the reader to change the way they think about ethics in the world with his principles. He states that if people gave enough of what they have, the world could be devoid of suffering because the actions of our giving. Helping others is a good deed and “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it.” (Singer) The main point mentioned: we have a moral duty to give help to others in need, seems to be deontological approach to society. Singer presents our ethics of duty, a category of Deontology in where morality is bound by our role in society. Additionally, neither distance or number of people free us from this responsibility. Personally, I do not agree with Singer’s arguments because I don’t feel people are morally obliged to do anything. Especially in modern society freedom to practice and do whatever is a right fought over everyday. It is good and kind to help the suffering and weak, but I do not believe there is some ethical duty of morality that compels us.

In the well written essay “famine, affluence, and morality” by Peter Singer, he discusses ethics and philosophy. It was written in 1971 around the time of the Bangladesh refugees who were starving. Singer believes that wealthy people should give poor people more because that is morally right. In western cultures this is a lot different. In my opinion, I disagree with his philosophy because if you are rich and another is poor you don’t have to do anything. You most likely deserved that money your self so why spend it on people you don’t know and might use it for harm rather than good? This is a quote that explains his thought process and what really made me switch and end up disagreeing with him, “we ought to be doing all we can to prevent starvation, but the idea that giving away a great deal of money is the best means to this end.” (Singer) You, a rich person, should absolutely not feel obligated to give back. Over all he seems to have more of a utilitarianism mindset. I believe that I am often a consequentialist. In class during our discussion of wether or not to kill 5 or 1 people or to push a fat person killing him but letting more live. In every discussion I always had a consequentialists perspective, as did my group.

“It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.” (Singer

“It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.”