Chapter 1
Moral principle in the benefits argument
The moral principle behind the benefits argument states that “if we can benefit someone, without harming anyone else, we ought to do so” (Rachel, n.d, p. 3).
Moral principle in the argument that we should not use people as means
“It is wrong to use people as means to other people’s ends” is the moral principle behind the argument that we should not use people as means (Rachel, n.d, p. 3).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Moral principle in the argument from the wrongness of killing
The moral principle driving the wrongness of killing argument states “it is wrong to kill one person to save another” (Rachel, n.d, p. 4).
Singer’s moral reasoning
In his discussion on moral obligations, Singer argues that people in rich nations have a responsibility to respond to the plight of those enduring hunger in poorer countries (Singer, 1972). He condemns rich countries for failing to do enough to alleviate the suffering of refugees in Bengal. These countries are investing more in such vain programs as opera houses and supersonic jets (Singer, 1972). The rich nations have left it to such poor nations as India to attend to the needs of the refugees. The discussion below explores different elements of this argument.
Assumptions
Before arriving at the argument above, Singer presents two assumptions. One, the suffering such as hunger that the poor endure is bad (Singer, 1972). Two, if one is able to prevent a bad situation without making huge sacrifices then they have an obligation to act (Singer, 1972). These two assumptions constitute the premise for his argument about the need for the rich nations to help tackle world hunger and other problems.
Specific moral principle
A specific moral principle is one that focuses on a particular issue. The first premise is a specific moral principle. The fact that it addresses a single particular issue is what makes it specific. Using this premise, Singer challenges people to understand that suffering is bad. This principle is specific because it explores such issues as hunger and death which are specific.
General moral principle
As opposed to specific moral principles which tend to be particular, general moral principles are rather broad. They address complex and extensive issues. The second premise can be considered to be a general moral principle. Here, Singer notes that if they can act to end a problem without causing other problems or making unacceptably huge sacrifices, individuals have the duty to take action. This moral principle is general because it can be applied to a wide range of moral situations; its application is not limited to the hunger in Bengal.
Moral theory applied
In supporting his general moral principle, Singer borrows a moral theory that Rachel presents in her work. This theory is that if one can benefit another without harming anyone, they should act (Rachel, n.d). Singer’s general moral principle challenges people to act to end suffering provided that they do not suffer great harm or cause bigger problems.
Example to avoid controversy
Singer states that his general moral principle is uncontroversial. To shield this principle against controversy, he supplies an example. The example concerns a drowning child. If one encounters this situation, they ought to act, regardless of whether there are other people who are equally well placed to intervene and rescue the child (Singer, 1972).
Moral implications
Singer states that when assessing their moral obligations, individuals should not consider distance or proximity. He adds that the implication of this argument is that “our traditional moral categories are upset” (Singer, 1972, p.5). The meaning of this implication is that individuals can no longer use the excuse of distance to justify their failure to act. The fact that the refugees in Bengal are thousands of miles away does not take away the obligation to intervene. Singer offers a discussion on how individuals should go above and beyond in supporting charitable causes (Singer, 1972). His proposal has far-reaching implications. It promises to change how the world responds to crises. This proposal challenges individuals to do more than the bare minimum. One should not give the least that is required. Instead, they should do all that they can to minimize as much suffering as possible.
Practical considerations
Singer concludes that the affluent have the responsibility to help those who endure struggles (Singer, 1972). To highlight the implications of this conclusion, Singer raises a number of practical considerations. One of these considerations concerns the argument that it is the duty of governments to provide aid (Singer, 1972). This consideration suggests that giving to private charities is not necessary. Another consideration involves the futility of aid. Singer notes that unless the poor countries initiate such interventions as population control, no amount of aid will be sufficient to effectively end poverty and hunger (Singer, 1972). The third consideration concerns how much one should give in aid. Should one give until a point where giving more would cause them suffering?
Strengths and weaknesses
Overall, Singer’s arguments possess more strengths than weaknesses. The main strength of his moral reasoning lies in practicality. He uses practical examples and arguments to highlight the need for affluent nations to help poorer ones. Another strength of his moral reasoning is that it is based on solid philosophical arguments. For example, to support his assertion that rich nations have a duty to end world hunger, Singer cites the philosophies of such writers as Urmson and Sigwick. As he cites these writers, he lends credibility to his moral reasoning. Singer anticipates and responds to objections and counterarguments. This is the third strength of his moral reasoning. By responding to the objections, he protects his reasoning against criticism. His moral reasoning is not perfect. One of the weaknesses is that it appears too excessive and unfair. Singer imposes on rich nations the mandate of responding to the challenges in poor countries. He gives little regard to the complexities of these challenges. The poor nations can be accused of setting the stage for their own problems. For example, corruption and failure to invest in effective programs are among possible causes of the problems. Therefore, it is unfair to require the rich nations to help address problems that appear self-inflicted.
References
Rachel, J. (n.d). What is morality?
Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality.
