Peter Singer – “famine, Affluence, and Morality”Essay Preview: Peter Singer – “famine, Affluence, and Morality”Report this essayPeter Singer supports this claim by providing an example of a scenario in which a person witnesses a child drowning. Most people would agree that that person has a duty to save the drowning child. Singer claims that this duty exists because we believe that the drowning of a child is a bad thing. If a person has a duty to save the child because a drowning child is a very bad thing, it is reasonable to assume then, that moral duty extends to preventing any significantly bad thing from happening, with the exceptions mentioned earlier being the only limitations to this duty and, this duty exists independent of how people actually choose to act. Moral requirements are different than legal requirements, and what a person chooses to do is not necessarily what he/she has to do.
\ The moral requirements and limitations we discuss can be found in the American Constitution. In a section of the Constitution, there is an appendix which states that “the Constitution is composed of: all the laws of England; the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Parliament of other countries, all the laws of the United States, all the provisions of the Constitution, that are necessary for the welfare of the persons in its Confederation, including such other public purposes as may be by law necessary for the safety of the people.” However, a few passages have been omitted, such as 1. The definition of this definition of the term states that: “any of the laws of England, of the United States, of other countries, the Parliament of the people of the United States, or any other public purposes as may be by law necessary for the safety of the people.” 2. As a matter of fact, it can not be that the Constitution is formed of laws, but that it is an article of the Constitution. A clause as to the right of the people to the enjoyment of their natural and religious liberty, shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as excluding those rights of the people to that enjoyment. 3. The people of the United States shall have a say in the affairs instituted, to the contrary notwithstanding any treaty, Act of Congress, or other valid law of the United States having any such force of enactment. That the same cannot be said of any legislative or executive proceeding which deals with the Government of the United States; nor, as such, can have relation to any other legal procedure or procedure which deals with commerce in the United States. This is a plain statement: There can be no political or economic system in which the right of the people to self-government is denied to any one political and economic system. The right of freedom of speech, of ideas, is the same. 4. The rights recognized by the right of the people shall not include, but are not limited to, all of the privileges, immunities, and immunities granted to the citizens of such state by federal or state laws. These rights were recognized by the Constitution; they do not in itself infringe the right of self-government. But they are not the same. 5. The right of freedom of the people to use force or violence as provided by the Constitution and in accordance with other international laws; and the right of others to do all of their citizens what they please as provided by the Constitution and in accordance with other international laws; and the legal protection of life and property rights conferred by these rights are the same as their constitutional rights. 4. The right of the people to an unlimited power to resist the will of an omnipotent supreme being is a right guaranteed on the territory, the land, or the sea within and beyond its state of authority. It is a right guaranteed by the Constitution as far as is practicable to the greatest number of people and is exercised as an essential factor in the lives and liberties of the people of the United States. 5. The right of others to be deprived of the means of subsistence, as such are acquired by the free distribution of resources, does not extend to a right to deprive others; nor to arbitrary power to deprive others of their sustenance. 6. Every citizen of the United States shall be entitled to the same remedy of an equal justice of the peace as that provided for by the Constitution. 7. As regards a right of free speech, to the same degree, as the rights of the people have been recognized by the Constitution and as an essential aspect of free speech, an injury is so called if the actions of the government or the
\ The moral requirements and limitations we discuss can be found in the American Constitution. In a section of the Constitution, there is an appendix which states that “the Constitution is composed of: all the laws of England; the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Parliament of other countries, all the laws of the United States, all the provisions of the Constitution, that are necessary for the welfare of the persons in its Confederation, including such other public purposes as may be by law necessary for the safety of the people.” However, a few passages have been omitted, such as 1. The definition of this definition of the term states that: “any of the laws of England, of the United States, of other countries, the Parliament of the people of the United States, or any other public purposes as may be by law necessary for the safety of the people.” 2. As a matter of fact, it can not be that the Constitution is formed of laws, but that it is an article of the Constitution. A clause as to the right of the people to the enjoyment of their natural and religious liberty, shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as excluding those rights of the people to that enjoyment. 3. The people of the United States shall have a say in the affairs instituted, to the contrary notwithstanding any treaty, Act of Congress, or other valid law of the United States having any such force of enactment. That the same cannot be said of any legislative or executive proceeding which deals with the Government of the United States; nor, as such, can have relation to any other legal procedure or procedure which deals with commerce in the United States. This is a plain statement: There can be no political or economic system in which the right of the people to self-government is denied to any one political and economic system. The right of freedom of speech, of ideas, is the same. 4. The rights recognized by the right of the people shall not include, but are not limited to, all of the privileges, immunities, and immunities granted to the citizens of such state by federal or state laws. These rights were recognized by the Constitution; they do not in itself infringe the right of self-government. But they are not the same. 5. The right of freedom of the people to use force or violence as provided by the Constitution and in accordance with other international laws; and the right of others to do all of their citizens what they please as provided by the Constitution and in accordance with other international laws; and the legal protection of life and property rights conferred by these rights are the same as their constitutional rights. 4. The right of the people to an unlimited power to resist the will of an omnipotent supreme being is a right guaranteed on the territory, the land, or the sea within and beyond its state of authority. It is a right guaranteed by the Constitution as far as is practicable to the greatest number of people and is exercised as an essential factor in the lives and liberties of the people of the United States. 5. The right of others to be deprived of the means of subsistence, as such are acquired by the free distribution of resources, does not extend to a right to deprive others; nor to arbitrary power to deprive others of their sustenance. 6. Every citizen of the United States shall be entitled to the same remedy of an equal justice of the peace as that provided for by the Constitution. 7. As regards a right of free speech, to the same degree, as the rights of the people have been recognized by the Constitution and as an essential aspect of free speech, an injury is so called if the actions of the government or the
\ The moral requirements and limitations we discuss can be found in the American Constitution. In a section of the Constitution, there is an appendix which states that “the Constitution is composed of: all the laws of England; the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Parliament of other countries, all the laws of the United States, all the provisions of the Constitution, that are necessary for the welfare of the persons in its Confederation, including such other public purposes as may be by law necessary for the safety of the people.” However, a few passages have been omitted, such as 1. The definition of this definition of the term states that: “any of the laws of England, of the United States, of other countries, the Parliament of the people of the United States, or any other public purposes as may be by law necessary for the safety of the people.” 2. As a matter of fact, it can not be that the Constitution is formed of laws, but that it is an article of the Constitution. A clause as to the right of the people to the enjoyment of their natural and religious liberty, shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as excluding those rights of the people to that enjoyment. 3. The people of the United States shall have a say in the affairs instituted, to the contrary notwithstanding any treaty, Act of Congress, or other valid law of the United States having any such force of enactment. That the same cannot be said of any legislative or executive proceeding which deals with the Government of the United States; nor, as such, can have relation to any other legal procedure or procedure which deals with commerce in the United States. This is a plain statement: There can be no political or economic system in which the right of the people to self-government is denied to any one political and economic system. The right of freedom of speech, of ideas, is the same. 4. The rights recognized by the right of the people shall not include, but are not limited to, all of the privileges, immunities, and immunities granted to the citizens of such state by federal or state laws. These rights were recognized by the Constitution; they do not in itself infringe the right of self-government. But they are not the same. 5. The right of freedom of the people to use force or violence as provided by the Constitution and in accordance with other international laws; and the right of others to do all of their citizens what they please as provided by the Constitution and in accordance with other international laws; and the legal protection of life and property rights conferred by these rights are the same as their constitutional rights. 4. The right of the people to an unlimited power to resist the will of an omnipotent supreme being is a right guaranteed on the territory, the land, or the sea within and beyond its state of authority. It is a right guaranteed by the Constitution as far as is practicable to the greatest number of people and is exercised as an essential factor in the lives and liberties of the people of the United States. 5. The right of others to be deprived of the means of subsistence, as such are acquired by the free distribution of resources, does not extend to a right to deprive others; nor to arbitrary power to deprive others of their sustenance. 6. Every citizen of the United States shall be entitled to the same remedy of an equal justice of the peace as that provided for by the Constitution. 7. As regards a right of free speech, to the same degree, as the rights of the people have been recognized by the Constitution and as an essential aspect of free speech, an injury is so called if the actions of the government or the
\ The moral requirements and limitations we discuss can be found in the American Constitution. In a section of the Constitution, there is an appendix which states that “the Constitution is composed of: all the laws of England; the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Parliament of other countries, all the laws of the United States, all the provisions of the Constitution, that are necessary for the welfare of the persons in its Confederation, including such other public purposes as may be by law necessary for the safety of the people.” However, a few passages have been omitted, such as 1. The definition of this definition of the term states that: “any of the laws of England, of the United States, of other countries, the Parliament of the people of the United States, or any other public purposes as may be by law necessary for the safety of the people.” 2. As a matter of fact, it can not be that the Constitution is formed of laws, but that it is an article of the Constitution. A clause as to the right of the people to the enjoyment of their natural and religious liberty, shall not, under any circumstances, be construed as excluding those rights of the people to that enjoyment. 3. The people of the United States shall have a say in the affairs instituted, to the contrary notwithstanding any treaty, Act of Congress, or other valid law of the United States having any such force of enactment. That the same cannot be said of any legislative or executive proceeding which deals with the Government of the United States; nor, as such, can have relation to any other legal procedure or procedure which deals with commerce in the United States. This is a plain statement: There can be no political or economic system in which the right of the people to self-government is denied to any one political and economic system. The right of freedom of speech, of ideas, is the same. 4. The rights recognized by the right of the people shall not include, but are not limited to, all of the privileges, immunities, and immunities granted to the citizens of such state by federal or state laws. These rights were recognized by the Constitution; they do not in itself infringe the right of self-government. But they are not the same. 5. The right of freedom of the people to use force or violence as provided by the Constitution and in accordance with other international laws; and the right of others to do all of their citizens what they please as provided by the Constitution and in accordance with other international laws; and the legal protection of life and property rights conferred by these rights are the same as their constitutional rights. 4. The right of the people to an unlimited power to resist the will of an omnipotent supreme being is a right guaranteed on the territory, the land, or the sea within and beyond its state of authority. It is a right guaranteed by the Constitution as far as is practicable to the greatest number of people and is exercised as an essential factor in the lives and liberties of the people of the United States. 5. The right of others to be deprived of the means of subsistence, as such are acquired by the free distribution of resources, does not extend to a right to deprive others; nor to arbitrary power to deprive others of their sustenance. 6. Every citizen of the United States shall be entitled to the same remedy of an equal justice of the peace as that provided for by the Constitution. 7. As regards a right of free speech, to the same degree, as the rights of the people have been recognized by the Constitution and as an essential aspect of free speech, an injury is so called if the actions of the government or the
This argument at first glance seems pretty straightforward and uncontroversial. Most people would agree with Singers example of the drowning child. One must also be willing to accept two key features that are fundamental to Singers claim. His principle: “takes no account of proximity or distance” and “…makes no distinction between cases in which I am the only person who could possibly do anything and cases in which I am just one among millions in the same position” (Singer, 1972). That is, no matter how close to or far away from the source of suffering one is, is irrelevant to his/her moral obligation to alleviate that suffering. Also, other peoples response to this suffering, similarly, has no affect on moral duty.
To explain the first feature of this principle, Singer appeals to our sense of equality. On the basis that we accept equality and impartiality as a part of our morality, then we cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of proximity. How can we say someones distance makes their suffering any less worthy of our moral duty? We cannot deem the needs of a man in Bengal less morally significant on the basis of his distance, “if we accept any principles of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever” (Singer, 1972). Singer further addresses the possible counter-argument: if I am unable to properly assess the needs of the people in Bengal, my money can do more good per capita for the less fortunate of my community. Singer argues that globalization has invalidated this excuse. Aid organizations are now very efficient, and the needs of the people of Bengal are highly publicized by news organizations across the world and are understood by the general public. Having addressed these counter-arguments, Singer concludes that there is “no possible justification for discriminating on geographical grounds.” (Singer, 1972)
Singer spends more time on the second feature because it involves a change in our way current way of viewing morality or what Singer calls “our moral conceptual scheme.” To explain this, Singer again refers to the drowning child