Of Charity: Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, And

Morality of Charity: Analysis of Peter Singer’s Famine, Affluence, and Morality In Peter Singer’s essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer concludes that people whose basic needs are met and have additional resources to spare should provide aid to those who are suffering. He also explains that alleviating suffering should not be viewed as charity but rather as a moral obligation. His argument is as follows:
(P1) To suffer and die due to lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad.
(P2) If you have the ability to prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, you are morally obligated to do so.
—————————————————————————
(C) You are morally obligated to prevent suffering and death due to famine and poverty if nothing of comparable moral significance is sacrificed. Premise one identifies an indisputable assumption: suffering due to famine and poverty is bad. Premise two explains that people with the capability of preventing bad situations without

Although Singer’s appeal to logic is convincing, humans are not entirely rational beings. It’s important to consider emotional significance because human beings are social by nature and society is built upon the social interactions and relationships formed between people. These relationships encourage innovation and cooperation and progress society more efficiently than millions of individuals simply coexisting on the planet with no exchange of thoughts and ideas. Not only are general relationships important, familial relationships are especially what is the difference between the emotional relationships with your mother and the strangers? aren’t both important interactions? familial relationships are most important because (community, unity, progress, trust) To ignore our emotional instincts in order to fulfill moral duties goes against human nature and can costs us