In 1971, Peter Singer, philosopher wrote an article entitled, Famine, Affluence, and Morality. His paper outlined the moral responsibility of people and their duties to other people, especially people that they don't know. His paper was mainly in response to the famine in East Bengal and countries like Bengal. However, that wasn't the problem he was addressing. The problem that he addresses is the idea of the morality of helping these people and specifically the morality of not helping these people. While we discussed in class today that the problem he addresses is the famine and whether people are morally obligated to help, I firmly believe that the actual problem he addresses is the idea that our society doesn't nurture the moral obligation to help, that for the most part humans are okay with knowing that people around the world are starving but still continue to buy unnecessary goods. His belief is that in order to overcome this problem there must be a completely radical change in thinking in the general population. In order to make this change, there need to be certain changes to the base of society. For one, consumer culture needs to changed dramatically in order to increase the desire to help other people before buying yourself a new shirt. Secondly, the motivation to help must be there, instead of making the situation a negative, people must feel the compulsion to make someone's life better. Finally, the physical separation must be overcome, you can see the incidents occurring but it's not the same as actually being in the situation and seeing it first hand. Seeing it first hand forces a person into a decision instantly, but only seeing it allows a person time to think about what options they have.
The idea that people willingly give and are considered immoral not to give is a completely radical idea. It can be accentuated by Singer's disdain for the words generosity and charity. He believes strongly in the idea that generosity and charity are words that are used to make people feel good when they go beyond the call of duty. He believes that if we make that radical change, to a society where it is considered immoral not to help starving people, that these words will become useless. And he believes that this change needs to be made in order to stop famine and horrible things from happening all around the world. He is not naive to the fact that there are many objections to his ideas. One objection is that his ideas are too radical. However, the objection that his ideas are too radical stem from people's thoughts that to not give is not a bad thing. To change this thinking we need a radical social revolution based around a change in cultural norms and supplying the motivation to change the thinking. The second objection is that where does the giving stop. He responds to this by stating that giving should be discontinued when the marginal utility of giving to another person costs you more than what they benefit from. The third objection that he predicted that people have is that some may think that the government should provide overseas aid. However, his argument to that is that the government takes the lead from the private sector. If people were not giving privately, the government should take that to mean that the charity is not a good enough cause and should not waste the time or money on it.
Personally, my opinion is that we do have the moral and ethical responsibility to alleviate suffering elsewhere in the world. Just because we can't see it, or we think that other people are contributing, or even that a charity organization is not worth the money, it doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there who is suffering. I agree that there needs to be a radical change in thinking. I don't feel that we should give nearly as much as Singer proposes, however, we live in a society that is based around consumer goods. Not a society that is based around helping others feel better or trying to save a life. What kind of society do we live in, in which we value a new shirt over the life of a 12-year-old in Bengal? It's not the type of world that I want to live in, or that I want my kids to live in. If we each just made a contribution of like $5 a day, we could stop world hunger. And that's the type of world I want to live in. A place where no child goes to bed hungry or has the proper medications to prevent a preventable disease. A place where children are happy and run and play and spread happiness to every person in their lives. I want to live in an unselfish world. Sure. That may, as defined by Singer's opponents, be socialism or communism, but I'd rather be living with only the necessities and happy than living with too much and be sad.
The idea that people willingly give and are considered immoral not to give is a completely radical idea. It can be accentuated by Singer's disdain for the words generosity and charity. He believes strongly in the idea that generosity and charity are words that are used to make people feel good when they go beyond the call of duty. He believes that if we make that radical change, to a society where it is considered immoral not to help starving people, that these words will become useless. And he believes that this change needs to be made in order to stop famine and horrible things from happening all around the world. He is not naive to the fact that there are many objections to his ideas. One objection is that his ideas are too radical. However, the objection that his ideas are too radical stem from people's thoughts that to not give is not a bad thing. To change this thinking we need a radical social revolution based around a change in cultural norms and supplying the motivation to change the thinking. The second objection is that where does the giving stop. He responds to this by stating that giving should be discontinued when the marginal utility of giving to another person costs you more than what they benefit from. The third objection that he predicted that people have is that some may think that the government should provide overseas aid. However, his argument to that is that the government takes the lead from the private sector. If people were not giving privately, the government should take that to mean that the charity is not a good enough cause and should not waste the time or money on it.
Personally, my opinion is that we do have the moral and ethical responsibility to alleviate suffering elsewhere in the world. Just because we can't see it, or we think that other people are contributing, or even that a charity organization is not worth the money, it doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there who is suffering. I agree that there needs to be a radical change in thinking. I don't feel that we should give nearly as much as Singer proposes, however, we live in a society that is based around consumer goods. Not a society that is based around helping others feel better or trying to save a life. What kind of society do we live in, in which we value a new shirt over the life of a 12-year-old in Bengal? It's not the type of world that I want to live in, or that I want my kids to live in. If we each just made a contribution of like $5 a day, we could stop world hunger. And that's the type of world I want to live in. A place where no child goes to bed hungry or has the proper medications to prevent a preventable disease. A place where children are happy and run and play and spread happiness to every person in their lives. I want to live in an unselfish world. Sure. That may, as defined by Singer's opponents, be socialism or communism, but I'd rather be living with only the necessities and happy than living with too much and be sad.