Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Singer starts out by discussing the situation in East Bengal. He presents us with the dire situation that is present there and then how relatively little any one country has done anything to help. Brittan is used as an example of how even though these countries may appear to be giving the less fortunate money, but in reality they could be doing much more to make a more noticeable impact. The assumption is made that we ought to help people to prevent what is bad from happening. Then he gives the example of a boy drowning in water and the negative to us would be that we would get our clothes wet while the life of the boy is preserved which is a bigger positive with a small negative of the clothes. He also argues against the factor of distance being a problem. If someone is across the street from you and needs help you are more likely to help them than to help someone suffering from poverty in a 3rd world country; however in today’s world it is just as easy to help someone in a 3rd world country just as it is to help someone in your own neighborhood. In the matter of donating to the poor it is best to give as much as you can so that it is not hurting you or your family. He makes the distinction that it is ok to buy new clothes if your old ones don’t fit or are worn, however if we are buying clothes that we do not need in order to stay well dressed then that is wrong. It is not right to only be concerned with the problems of our own society. Singer thinks that if we are more likely to give or donate things if the people around us are willing to do the same. These considerations are only what we should require from others and not what we should require from ourselves. He brings in Thomas Aquinas who says that men who have a super abundance of something are required to give it to the less fortunate who do not have as much of that thing.

He believes that giving the responsibility of charities