“Famine, Affluence, And Morality” By Peter Singer
Singer’s essay has been highly influential, bringing up important questions about how we ought to help others and whether affluent societies are as generous with their resources as they should be. Below, we’re going to discuss what "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" says about altruism, wealth, and ethics.
What is "Famine, Affluence, And Morality"?
Peter Singer is a moral philosopher from Australia who works as a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He approaches many issues from a utilitarian standpoint, which emphasizes the importance of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This is the guiding principle behind his most famous work—"Famine, Affluence, and Morality"—an essay in which he argues that people, organizations, and governments with sufficient resources have a moral obligation to donate what they can to help humanity.
Singer wrote “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in 1971, at the same time as a genocide was occurring in East Pakistan (now known as Bangladesh). During this time, millions of refugees were crossing into India, where many of them faced challenging conditions, including extreme hunger. Singer used the example of refugees in crisis to illustrate his point, which was that people who can give their own resources to people in need—without harming themselves or others—should do so.
Main arguments
“Famine, Affluence, and Authority” has a few key points, but the primary assertion is that if people, organizations, or governments with sufficient resources can use their money to alleviate hardship around the world, they are morally obligated to do so. Singer is not saying that those with substantial wealth should give up all their money, but enough to help those in need while not inhibiting their ability to sustain themselves.
One of the main ways Singer makes his point is through a thought experiment in which he describes how most people respond to a hypothetical situation in which they see that a child is drowning in a shallow pond nearby. Most people would say that they would save the child, despite the fact that they may damage their clothes or miss work. They will make this tradeoff given what could be lost if they do not help. However, when it comes to making a sacrifice—potentially a much smaller one—for those who live far away (e.g., in Bangladesh), people often do not experience the same impulse.
Moral obligations and the global duty to aid in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"
Singer says that people should look beyond the motivations and interests of the society they live in when providing aid to others. He also points out that, thanks to technological advancements, people can more easily allocate money and aid anywhere in the world, meaning that there is no longer any "justification for discriminating on geographical grounds,” as he puts it. Singer observes that many affluent societies do not recognize this moral obligation.
In his essay, Singer explains that agony from a lack of food, medicine, or shelter is preventable, and that steps should be taken to avoid it whenever possible. He then states that if we have sufficient resources, and we can prevent or lessen this burden without affecting our well-being, we have a moral obligation to do so.
Singer goes on to argue that there is no difference between helping your neighbor and helping someone in Bangladesh, even though it may be easier to help someone close to you. The obligation does not change, and though most of us are going to put the interests of our community first, we should still help those thousands of miles away if we can.
Singer also states that it doesn't matter if you are the only person who could help, as in the case of the child in the pond, or one out of many, as in the case of people in need around the world. According to him, regardless of the number of people who can help, each person has an obligation to do so. He believes that individuals can't pass the responsibility to someone else simply because others are also in a position to help. He equates this to someone seeing the child in the pond but not helping because many others also see the child.
Critical reception
Singer’s essay was generally well-received, and it is considered one of the most important pieces on applied ethics ever written. The aforementioned child in the pond analogy has also become a popular thought experiment and has been used in many other essays (e.g., “A "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" for Climate Change?”).
Criticism of Peter Singer's demanding moral obligations
However, there were a few criticisms. Many people believe that Singer’s view of our obligations is overly demanding. Some people have argued against the extreme nature of Singer’s points, claiming that they defy practicality and are too broad. For example, let's say that to help someone in great need, you would have to leave your family behind. According to people who object to Singer’s principle, this could be deemed too demanding of you; therefore, your moral obligation to help would be dissolved.
How you can help others
While many people refute some of the principles laid out in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer’s essay illustrates the various ways we can help others. If you’re interested in supporting people in need, there are numerous opportunities for you to practice altruism regardless of your financial situation. The following are some ways that you can help others.
Spread awareness about causes you support
Consider getting the word out about organizations that align with your values. For example, if you are passionate about ecological conservation, you may want to engage with environmental non-profits on social media. Or if you want to help the unhoused, you could write a blog post about a local shelter.
Consider volunteer work
Volunteering is a direct and effective way to help others and give of yourself. Consider donating your time to a cause that you're interested in. If you love animals, try volunteering at an animal shelter. If you want to help alleviate hunger, consider working in a food pantry.
Reach out to people outside your community
In the spirit of “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” consider providing support to people whom you might not ordinarily have the chance to help, whether because they live in other cities, states, or countries. For example, you could become an international pen pal with a child who is in need of encouragement and guidance, donate money to an international food safety organization, or even volunteer abroad.
How online therapy can help
Sometimes, the best way to embark on a path to helping others is to learn how to help ourselves. And sometimes, we need some help learning how to do that. Online therapy platforms may be a helpful tool in learning how to improve the mental health of ourselves and others. For example, one study demonstrated how people who used BetterHelp experienced a significant decrease in depression symptom severity after engaging in online therapy.
Support for caregivers with BetterHelp
Those who help others often need support of their own at times. With an online therapy platform like BetterHelp, you can work with a therapist remotely, which can be helpful if you’re already busy giving back to your community. BetterHelp works with thousands of mental health professionals—who have a range of areas of expertise—so you’ll have a better chance of connecting with someone who can address your specific mental health-related concerns.
Takeaway
What is the main argument of “Famine, Affluence, And Morality”?
Singer's primary argument in his theory of famine, affluence, and morality is that it is in each person’s moral power to prevent harm or evil if they do not sacrifice anything of comparable moral importance. For example, you might jump to save someone from drowning, even if it means you lose your phone in the process, as many people know another person's life is worth more than a phone, which you may easily find a replacement for.
What is Singer's principle?
Singer’s primary principle in teaching ethics is as follows: “If we can prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought to do so.” You can learn more about this principle in Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer, a book published by Oxford University Press. Within its pages and text, you can find many of Singer’s other principles, such as the principle of unity.
What implications does Singer’s argument have for our concept of charity?
In one of Singer’s books, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, published by Oxford University Press, he teaches that donating is another way to prevent harm to others ethically. The book states that many people worldwide are experiencing unfair and unethical conditions. Instead of purchasing luxury goods, it may be more ethical to donate money to non-profits aiming to support these individuals in remaining safe and alive.
This argument from within the pages of this book slightly differs from the concept of charity, almost seeming to state that all people must donate as a moral code. Some believe this argument is too demanding and limited and disregards the personal benefits of pleasure and spending money. Others believe it goes against human rights to free will.
What is Singer’s response to the question: How much should we be giving away to help others?
In one of Singer’s books, Famine, Affluence, And Morality, published by the Oxford University Press, he lists several guidelines for giving to others. He recommends donating at least 1% of your income to charities, non-profits, and other causes. If you have limited resources or a lack of money in your bank account, you might give back in different ways, such as volunteering for free.
What does Singer believe about his argument for famine relief?
According to his book published by the Oxford University Press, Singer believes world famine and other challenges could be solved if people were dedicated to giving up some of their substantial wealth and resources to support those with lesser resources who are suffering or experiencing trauma. He argues that technology makes it easier for people worldwide to donate to international causes, whether through a website or payment app.
Singer urges people with more financial wealth to donate more than those with less by donating at least 1% of their income, as long as it does not impact their ability to sustain themselves healthily. Some people do not agree with the theories within the pages of this book, whereas others believe it may be the solution to decades of famine and other human crises.
Which moral theory does Peter Singer use to argue that we should treat animals with respect?
Singer uses the theory of utilitarianism to argue that individuals should treat animals with respect. This theory states that animals should be treated as equals and liberated from human control. Utilitarianism argues that actions can be “right or wrong” depending on whether they cause pain or promote happiness. Singer’s book, published by the Oxford University Press, states that unfair and unethical treatment of animals in the meat and dairy industries leads to pain, making it morally wrong.
What is the conclusion of The Singer Solution to world poverty?
Singer’s solution to end world poverty is to donate extra money. For example, a household earning $90,000 annually can contribute at least $900 annually to charity. Some people may choose to donate all of their extra income to charity. For example, if the same household spent $60,000 on necessities that year, they could donate $30,000 to charity.
What is the morality of charitable giving?
The morality of charitable giving states that giving is always moral and good and could sometimes be classified as a “moral requirement.” If you can provide without harming yourself, giving can make someone else's life safer, more prosperous, and happier. Charitable giving can involve volunteering, working toward change, or donating money and goods.
Are you morally obligated to save the drowning child?
Moral questions are subjective. However, many people agree that saving the drowning child in Singer’s example would be a moral obligation. In this example, you are asked to consider what you would do if you saw a child drowning but would only be able to save them if you jumped in the water with your phone in your pocket and got your clothing wet.
Those who choose not to save the child to protect their phone and clothing would not be acting morally within this theory, as they are acting as if the child’s life is not worth as much as their material goods. Those who save the child are operating within Singer’s theory of morality because they recognize the child’s life is worth more than material goods that can be replaced.
- Previous Article
- Next Article