Famine, Affluence, andMorality (Peter Singer)

Question 1

Two forms of Singer’s argument

Answer 1

Strong Argument:

Premise: We have a moral obligation to prevent suffering and death, regardless of proximity or relationship.

Implication: We should donate significantly to famine relief, even at personal cost, to prevent suffering.

Critique: Seen as demanding and unrealistic, expecting individuals to give large portions of their wealth.

Moderate Argument:

Premise: We have a moral obligation to prevent suffering, but not to the point of extreme personal sacrifice.

Implication: We should still donate to causes but with less drastic expectations.

Critique: Seen as more practical but may not maximize potential to reduce suffering.

Question 2

Reasons Singer rejects as irrelevant objections to his argument

Answer 2

Objection: Rights/Entitlement

Singer argues that the idea of individual rights or entitlement is irrelevant when it comes to preventing suffering, as the moral obligation to help others outweighs concerns about rights.

Objection: Ineffectiveness of Donations

He rejects the claim that donations won’t make a significant difference, emphasizing that even small contributions can help prevent suffering, especially when collectively done.

Objection: Cultural or National Boundaries

Singer dismisses the argument that moral obligations are limited by national or cultural boundaries, advocating for a universal responsibility to help those in need, regardless of their location.