Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Essay Preview: Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Report this essay
Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Katrina Pride
Instructor: Thomas MacCarty
December 10, 2012
In Peter Singers article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality, he gives what seems to be a devastating outline of our normal way of thinking concerning the relief of the famine, charity and morality in general. Only a small number of people accepted, or even acted upon the conclusions that he shared. The enlightenment of these facts someone may make the statement or argument such as Hume did in the likeness of Berkelys argument for immaterialism, stating that “they admit of no answer and produce any convictions” (Hume, 1999). I believe that Singers consideration show that people should be more considerate, but because they do not accept his conclusion in the fullness from his general facts that he provided. Even though his arguments seem to only provide a partial answer, but if properly examined it may bring conviction.
Singer argues that people who lives in affluent countries must change their way of life along with their conception of morality, in hopes that they will commit to helping those that at are in need. He first asked for us to consider cases of famine such as the one in Bengal in the year of 1971, people suffered extensively and he felt if that the proper requirements wasnt fulfilled by individuals as well as the government officials. Singer presented two principles: the first principle was that suffering and death are bad, whether it comes from hunger, deficient housing, or the lack of proper medical care. The second principle was that if anyone is in a position to prevent a morally bad situation without sacrificing something of roughly equal moral importance one should do so. The first principle states whether a person should help those who are suffering or dying by the closeness of another person unless it is too difficult or its a lot of distance between them does not make the suffering any less. When both principles are connected it appears that ones obligation to help those who are in need will not vanish or change for the better if those who are able to help refuse to do so, and morally they are no different than the people who are not present but involve themselves.
Singer comments on this argument by adding that he could get by with a weaker version of the second principle, which would have “something of moral significance” in place of “something of roughly equal moral importance” (Urmson, 1958). Singer next considers a couple of objections one is that if everyone were to donate what they should to famine relief, each person would only need to contribute a small amount, and thus there would be no reason for one to contribute more than a small amount. Singer responds that its just not true that everyone donates what they should to famine relief, so this objection is irrelevant given the actual situation. Another is that, since not many people donate much to famine relief, those who do should keep giving until they reach the point where their wellbeing is roughly equal to that of the people they are trying to help. This would result in them donating more than they need to, which means that things would be better if people didnt do quite as much as they should. Singer says that this would happen only if they didnt know how much others were donating, and if they all acted at the same time. If they do know, and dont all give at the same time, they may, and will, donate less than they otherwise would. Taking himself to have satisfactorily answered the past two objections, Singer regards the second principle as established, and says that if necessary he can still make his case using its weaker version. Singer thinks the foregoing has wide-ranging consequences for our moral thinking. Most people feel that they are perfectly within their rights to give whatever they choose to charity, whether it is nothing, a large amount, or something in between. According to Singer this is wrong. The money that people of wealthy nations spend on luxuries should instead be donated to charity because the poor and the needy need it to survive. Donating ones money to help them isnt just good, its obligatory. Developed because certain actions, the obligatory ones, are a necessary precondition for people to live together in a society; the good actions may help, but are not necessary. In particular, helping those outside ones society is not. Singer says this may explain why many think theres a distinction between whats good and whats obligatory, but that doesnt justify them in not donating to charity. Morality requires that we look beyond our own society because the needs those starving in other societies are just as pressing as our own, if not more so. Second, some have suggested that our moral codes shouldnt require too much beyond what people are able to do. If they do, people will stop obeying them. Singer responds, first, that a strong version of this thesis is false. Even if people failed to do their duty by donating to famine relief they wouldnt go around killing people. Second, what people are able to do vary with different circumstances and is influenced by what others do as well as by what others expect them to do. Third, it is worth taking the chance of a moral breakdown in order to relieve famine. Finally, the foregoing applies only to what we require of each other, not to what one should do oneself. Singer concludes by saying that, contrary to some, philosophers are competent to discuss famine relief, and moreover ought to discuss it. Just as importantly, philosophers should have the courage of their convictions and do what they know they ought to. It may not be an easy thing for one to do, but Singer believes that by doing so one can begin to reconcile theory and practice. I think we arent in general required to do as much as Singer thinks we should, for if we were that would detract from our moral autonomy. I think that people are morally free to live their own lives and pursue their own interests, at least up to a point, and this entails that one is morally permitted to devote ones time, energy, and money to activities that dont directly have an impact on famine relief or similar worthy causes. How is this connected to Singers arguments? It is relevant in this way: “If people are obligated to do as much as they possibly can, to “work full