Analysis Of Famine, Affluence And Morality By Peter Singer

1331 Words6 Pages
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” by Peter Singer, he argues that we ought to give a significant amount of money as aid to third-world countries and that our current form of life in Western countries is not justiciable. He gives us readers a different viewpoint on the way we live our lives and the way we look at moral issues needs to change. Throughout his paper, Singer compares charity and duty. Donating to a charity or a good cause is all up to an individual, although not many people donate. But, he is calling for us to perform our duty of helping others and make all of us well aware that suffering is bad and much more can be done to help the ones in need. Singer says we have a duty to give to charity. Basically, by not giving to charity, we are all doing something morally wrong every day, and he is right but to a certain extent. Singer argues that the way people in relatively wealthy countries react to situations, such as the example he mentions of the crisis Bengal faces, is unjustifiable (230). He first says that for one, unnecessary death is bad, from either hunger or lack of shelter, and then two, if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, or anything morally significant, then we must do it. Basically, by not giving to charity, we are all doing something morally wrong every day, in which might trigger certain individuals since some cannot afford to do so. In which it’s
Open Document