Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Author: Peter Singer
Source: Philosophy & Public Affairs, Spring 1972, Vol. 1, No. 3
Key focus on moral responsibility regarding famine, specifically referencing events in East Bengal.

As of November 1971, widespread suffering in Bengal due to poverty, a cyclone, and civil war, affecting at least nine million people.
Wealthy nations are capable of providing aid to alleviate suffering but have failed to do so significantly.
Example: The UK contributed approximately £14.75 million, contrasting sharply with the costs of the Concorde project exceeding £275 million.
Moral Implication: Comparison illustrates a higher value placed on certain projects over human lives in crises.

Assumption: Suffering and death from lack of essentials (food, shelter, medical care) is bad.
Moral Principle: If we can prevent bad things from happening without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.
Analogy: If witnessing a drowning child, one should act immediately, as the cost (muddy clothes) is insignificant compared to the potential loss of life.

Universality: This principle does not depend on proximity, meaning moral obligation exists regardless of how far someone is from the suffering individual.
Individual Obligations: Moral obligations remain irrespective of the number of others who might also fail to act.
The argument challenges societal norms that often differentiate between duty and charity; contributing to famine relief should not be merely seen as charitable but a moral obligation.

Current perception: Donations viewed as acts of charity rather than a moral duty.
Buying unnecessary items instead of donating is seen as acceptable, even though such spending does not fulfill significant needs.
Advocacy for a reevaluation of moral responsibilities is stressed.

Objection: Current moral schemes do not align with Singer's argument.
- Response: The way society currently judges does not invalidate the moral conclusions drawn.
Urmson’s Point: Society tends to uphold norms that act as a glue for social structure; however, failing to look beyond this limits the comprehension of global moral obligations.

Singer acknowledges that both private and governmental aid for famine relief are necessary. Key points include:
- Effective Population Control: To prevent future famines, necessitating attention to sustainable practices rather than solely relief efforts.
- Individual Financial Obligation: Consideration on how much aid individuals should realistically provide without causing personal harm.

Shift in Moral Standards: Calls for a fundamental change in how society views moral obligations, especially concerning global famine relief.
Philosophers and individuals alike should actively engage in discussions and actions to promote these moral responsibilities.
Emphasizes the urgency and importance of aligning actions with philosophical morals to prevent needless suffering in the world.