Famine purposes a great problem to humanity. Singer explains how famine in east Bengal took a swing at humanity. (Singer, 1972 at p.1)[1] He argues that the reaction of people in relatively affluent countries is unjustified to situations similar to like t
A Response to Famine, Affluence, and Morality
Due Date: April 21, 2009
Famine purposes a great problem to humanity. Singer explains how famine in east Bengal took a swing at humanity. (Singer, 1972 at p.1) He argues that the reaction of people in relatively affluent countries is unjustified to situations similar to like that in Bengal. The moral eye needs to be tampered with in light of these issues. (Singer, 1972 at p.1) The purpose of this paper is to analyze Peter Singer's argument. According to Damer's five criteria of a good argument, it would be safe to claim that peter singer has made a good argument. (Damer at p. 30) Though singer's argument is good and persuasive, his paper is not free from criticisms against certain points he raises while making his argument.
I would like to point out two important issues with his paper. Firstly, there should not have been a criticism for not donating. Secondly, discussion over misspent aid funds should have been included in his argument, since it is a serious problem. Despite these issues, idea presented in Singer's thesis should be supported.
Singer begins his argument by criticizing the public for not giving large sums to relief funds, among other criticisms. (Singer, 1972 at p.1) Then again, he criticizes the public for spending their money on new clothes and cars instead of giving to the relief funds. (Singer, 1972 at p.2) I would like to point out that the income of a household in an affluent society is earned by the household. Anything earned by an individual is their property. A person can do whatever they wish with their property, because it belongs to them and they have a right over it. With that in mind, one must realize that donating to the Bengal relief fund is a choice of the household that wishes to give away their income. It is not necessary that a household that refuses to pay for the relief fund is doing something morally bad to the society and humanity. The owner of the wealth has the right over where it can go, since he or she has earned it. It is not up to society or individuals to decide where the owner of the wealth can spend their income, since it does not belong to society. If the owner wishes to spend their earned income for something useless to humanity, such as new clothes and a car, that is their choice. It is a natural law of man to have rights over his property, especially in a capitalist economy. Thus, the distribution of that property, to whatever means it goes to, is determined by the owner of that property. One cannot label them morally bad, unless he or she harms society. By not donating to the Bengal relief fund, a person or household cannot be labelled morally bad because the household or individual is not harming anyone, just not preventing something that is harmful. Preventing something harmful, and harming someone are two distinct entities. Preventing harm, in the Bengal case is financially. If one wishes not to provide his finances to the Bengal Famine relief fund, then it’s a person’s right over his property, however, if through the same finances, he was to buy nuclear weapons to desecrate others, then that would be morally wrong. Since a person’s income is earned by that individual, that person has the right to do what he or she wishes with their income, because it is their property. Therefore, one should not criticize any person for not donating out of his or her will. I believe, donations should not come through the means of making one feel guilty of their spending, instead it should come from their care and unforced will.