Peter Singer \"Famine, Affluence, and Morality\" PDF

Preview

Summary

This paper hopes to demonstrate how the inefficiency of charities makes proximity a factor in the moral obligation....

Description

1. Peter singer argues it is every human’s moral duty to donate money in order to prevent famine/ suffering without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. 2. Inefficiency of charities, social, political, and military situations limit the effect of donations and make it not a moral obligation. 3. Overhead cost is required, the more money donated the higher ratio of the money will go to those in need. There are ways to be charitable with money that directly enforces good, which is the basic principle.

Complexities with Charities Fault Peter Singers’ “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer claims if it is in your power to prevent suffering without causing equal suffering we must are morally obligated to act. Singer ties this moral thought to the developed world’s lack of action against famine in less developed countries. According to Singer, it is humans’ duty to promote as much moral good as possible without sacrificing your wellbeing. While Singer is correct in criticizing our often selfish and materialistic world he does not properly account for the complexities of international organizations. This paper hopes to demonstrate how the inefficiency of charities makes proximity a factor in the moral obligation. Singer explains an accepted moral principle that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening we morally ought to do it. He is careful to clarify that the principle applies as long as nothing of equivalent importance is sacrifice. In other words, Signer is not asking the poor to donate their rent money even though someone else is starving. Singer uses an example to make his point. Imagine walking past a child drowning in a shallow pond, it is completely in your power to save the child. The only sacrifice would be your clothes would become muddy. It is assumed that everyone would be willing to make that sacrifice in order to save the child. It is continued to argue that sitting by and living a privileged existence while millions of people die from malnutrition is as morally unacceptable as ignoring the drowning child. Singer argues that those with excess affluence are morally expected to donate all that is not necessary to those in extreme poverty. It is an oversimplification to argue that giving money directly saves lives. In a disturbingly large percentage of cases, donated money is basically lost, either to overhead,

mismanagement, waste, or outright theft and corruption. In 2007 an annual report in California detailing the total amounts collected by commercial fundraisers on behalf of charity and how much of the money collected actually reached the intended recipients. The average distribution to charity from all campaigns conducted by commercial fundraisers in 2007 was 43.63 percent. This is not a cherry-picked statistic, the percentage of money given to charities that reach those in need is often less than half. If there were constantly reliable places to donate money that otherwise would be spent on luxuries, and it would save someone's life, then I'd feel it was immoral not to donate it, per Singer's argument. However, if I think my money is going to be thrown in a pile with a lot of other peoples' donations, be eaten away by charity marketing budgets and salaries, and may or may not do some good somewhere down the road. I'm not convinced that's a moral obligation. If that child's in front of me, I know that I can take action that will save his life. If that child is starving in the midst of a horribly complex social, political, and military situation five thousand miles away, in a culture and environment I can't begin to understand, I'm not convinced I can do anything for him. A proponent of Singer might argue, the overhead costs are unavoidable. Running large international organizations it is inevitable that there will be many expenses. If a higher amount of money is donated the ratio of overhead will change. The ultimate goal of promoting good and preventing suffering is still happening even if some money is not directly going to those in need. Singer might argue that spending excess money on luxuries while millions starve to death is still morally unacceptable. Singer uses the moral principle, “It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and to promote what is good” to argue that excess affluence should be donated to the people who need it the most. It still follows the moral principle to use the affluence to promote good in direct

methods such as spending money to take one’s children out for quality time, donating locally, supporting a local business, purchasing flowers for a funeral, ext. These moral acts that require excess money will promote good in a direct way without half of it going to overhead costs....