Cronin 1
Jessica Cronin
Professor Julien Farland
ETH 101 – Ethics and Society
27 July 2013
Final Exam
Morality, Hunger, and Affluence---Peter Singer & John Author
Affluent Individuals and Hunger
Peter Singer holds strong onto his view that affluent individuals have a moral
obligation to alleviate hunger in the world. He holds two view point on this principal, one
stronger and one more moderate. The moderate states that we ought to do anything in our
control to prevent all bad from happening, without losing anything of similar moral
significance. The stronger, which he favors, states that if there is any possibility for us to
prevent anything bad from occurring, without losing what is morally important, we
should be obligated to do so. Singer sees the world as a “global village” and this principal
is meant not only for your neighbor, but also for everyone in the world who is in need of
assistance. The principal also does not make discrepancies between two cases. The first
case is when you are the only person capable of helping. The second case is when you are
in the same position as millions of others to help. In defense of the latter position he
states that there is a psychological difference, in the case where there are millions of
people, guilt plays less of a factor than in the case of you being the only person, but this
psychological difference does not change our moral obligations. Everyone should give
what he ought to give at least to the point of “marginal utility.”
At Least Two Common Objections to Helping the Poor
Cronin 2
Peter Singer is extremely aware of the objections to his principals and to helping
the poor. In Famine, Affluence, and Morality he fights to make his principal sound by
contradicting each objection. I was able to find three concrete objections. The first is,
those who are suffering live far away. He quickly rids of this because other parts of the
world are so easily reached nowadays that there is no justification to this objection. The
second objection is the fact that others are not helping, so why should I. Singer believes
that every one should contribute to the point of “marginal utility.” If you are aware of
others contributing then you may down the amount that you are contributing. The third
objection is faded line between charity and morality. It is accepted in our society to praise
those who donate and to give no repercussions to those who do not. Our society believes
there is nothing wrong with not giving. Singer gives the argument that it is wrong to buy
clothes that are not a necessity, when we could donate that money to the needy. He states
“we ought to give money away, and it wrong not to do so”(Sommers 378).
Passivity and Acts of Omission = Murder
Singer has a reoccurring story for his article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality.
There is a child drowning in a pond. Would you save the child and ruin you clothing, or
walk away and let the child drown. This sets up his idea that passivity and acts of
omission are the moral equivalent to murder. It would be morally correct to go save the
child and in doing so saving a life. If we did not act, and ignored the child for the sake of
saving our morally insignificant clothes, we would in a sense be committing a murder.
Why should this not be globally moral? Oceans and land no longer prevent us from
contributing to those who are in desperate need of help. What Singer means by omission
Cronin 3
being equivalent to murder is the fact that if we fail to help to point of marginal utility,
we are in turn murdering those who are on the verge of death.
The Poor: Singer versus Arthur
The first difference between Singer and Arthur is the fact that Singer ignores the
positive rights of people. Arthur explains in World Hunger and Moral Obligation: The
Case against Singer, that positive rights are those that are not natural and are rights you
consent to, and negative rights are those that are naturally occurring such as the right to
life. This contradicting Singer’s principal that you ought to help if it is in your power to
do so because helping others is a positive right. If you consent to helping those in need
then Singers principal holds true, but if you do not consent then it is not your moral
obligation to help.
John Arthur argues a second entitlement of desert. This means that we are
deserving of what we worked hard for. Arthur uses a story of a farmer and his lazy
neighbor. The farmer, through hard work, has created a surplus of food. His neighbor
fails to get any food for the winter because he is too busy fishing all summer. Should this
farmer not reap from his rewards and give his surplus to his lazy neighbor? Arthur
believes that every factor should have equal importance when deciding how to act in
situation. He emphasizes this by saying, “… being outweighed is in any case not the
same as weighing nothing” (Sommers 385). Singer does not consider that people should
be entitled to what they earned; he believes that everyone who has the power to help
should do so.
Critical Analysis and Evaluation
Affluent Individuals and Hunger
Cronin 4
Peter Singer has a rather radical viewpoint when he claims that affluent
individuals have a moral obligation to alleviate hunger in the world. He focuses on the
principal that, “…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” (Sommers 375). I believe his views are so radical that very few will
whole-heartedly follow his principal. If he focused more on the moderate view, which
he does not believe to be fit, others may be able to understand and follow this
principal.
Singer also discusses the fact that every corner of our world is easily
accessible, and we are able to help those in extreme need on the other side of the
earth. Although it is true, that the more affluent nations should more appropriately
distribute their Gross National Product, we should focus on our own nations before
helping others. We must fix ourselves before fixing others. As an example, the
United States has a little less than 50 million people who are struggling to put food
on their table. In terms of the nation as a whole, it would be morally wrong to let
this happen and give our money to those who are in another nation. We must, as a
whole, reap the rewards of an affluent nation to gain control of ourselves before
moving on to others. When we are stable, and there is no evils left in our nation,
then we must move onto other nations.