In , the young philosopher Peter Singer published Famine, Affluence and Morality, which rapidly became one of the most widely discussed essays in. Outline of PETER SINGER: “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. Singer’s main argument: 1. Lack of food & shelter & medicine is bad. 2. If it is in. Peter Singer. Abstract. As I write this, in November , people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical caxc. The suffering and death.
|Published (Last):||3 July 2014|
|PDF File Size:||14.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.8 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Peter Singer argues people have the ability to transform the world around them for the better, rather than accepting their fate.
He argued that choosing not to send life-saving money to starving people on the other side of the earth is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save drowning children because we prefer not to muddy our shoes. No keywords specified fix it. It is in our power to prevent this bad thing.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality
But in moral terms, Singer argues, the challenge posed is the same. Bill and Melinda Gates Preface: Companies Show more Companies links.
This sense of agency is the main force for eliminating poverty. If we can help, we must–and any excuse is hypocrisy.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality – Wikipedia
Ebook This title is available as an ebook. Singer’s Agenda for Applied Ethics. The suffering and death that are occurring there now axe not inevitable, ; unavoidable in any fatalistic sense of the term. Those snger want to contribute to famine relief or poverty alleviation should be free to do so. The Duty to Object. The Ethical Principles of Effective Altruism.
John Bengson – – Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86 3: MacDonald – – Dialogue 35 3: Experience and History David Carr. We can prevent it without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.
Of course, Singer does not stop with the example of the drowning child. The affluent, says Singer, are consistently guilty of failing to recognize this, having large amounts of surplus wealth that they do not use to aid humanitarian projects in developing nations. Britain, for instance, has given rather pdter than most countries.
US Show more US links. Academic Skip to main content.
Peter Singer, Famine, affluence, and morality – PhilPapers
Retrieved from ” https: We should give to the level that does not reduce spending in a consumption-based society like ours below the point that would start to decrease what we have available to give. Close Financial Times International Edition. He argued that choosing not to send life-saving money to starving people on the other side of the earth is the moral equivalent of neglecting to save drowning children because we prefer not to muddy our shoes.
Find it on Scholar. Conference on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
John Kekes – – Philosophy 77 4: On the Supposed Obligation to Relieve Famine. Singer’s extreme stand on our moral obligations to others became a powerful call to arms and continues to challenge people’s attitudes towards extreme poverty. It casts western philanthropists as heroic saviours of the helpless and those living in dire conditions as passive victims of dire circumstances.
But how much MORE can we do until that happens? One of the core arguments of this essay is that, if one can use one’s wealth to reduce suffering — for example, by aiding famine-relief efforts — without any significant reduction in the well-being of oneself or others, it is immoral not to do so.