The Bleakness and Humiliation of Our World - Research Paper Example

Singer’s arguments in his article are that the suffering and death that are due to the lack of shelter, medical care, and food are damaging. That we ought, morally, to sacrifice anything that is of comparable moral importance when there is the power to prevent some things terrible from taking place, for instance, one might get wet in order that he or he saves a drowning a child. Singer also argues that it is the obligation of all to prevent the terrible thing. This is, in fact, to preventing people dying from starvation by trying to give food, money to famine relief than one does.

The other argument is that by giving more money to famine relief that one do in normal circumstances, and then he or she is not sacrificing anything that is morally significant. The last argument Singer presents in his article is that we should give more to famine relief than we do. Therefore, the surest way to prevent lack of food and shelter without sacrificing anything that is of comparable moral importance is by giving maximally. That we ought to give maximally, or in other term, give at least much more than we currently do (Singer, 2005).

The Singer’s concept of marginal utility states that one ought to give until a certain level (Marginal Utility), in which case one shall cause as much suffering to sell or the dependents as he or she would relieve by the gift. This implies that everyone obliged to give as much as possible, to at least some point of giving where one would begin to cause some serious suffering to others who depend on him or her or to oneself. Therefore, one ought to give until one become quite uncomfortable, even when one do not seem to encounter starving.

Singer also proposes some ideas of duty and charity change in the world. He says duty is a duty in itself while charity is beyond the call of duty. He reiterates duty as wrong not to do it while, in charity, he reiterates that it is expedient to do it. However, it is not wrong to refrain from doing it. In addition, duty is doing the morally required while charity is doing what is charitable. He then reiterates that duty is refraining from murder and charity is giving to famine relief to the extent that one is sacrificing something morally significant.

Therefore, according to Singer, one has to revise the way of thinking. That giving to famine relief should be thought of in terms of duty, as a wrong when one does not do it as morally required (Singer, 2005). Morality may be an object or its state of affair that can be invalid or wicked, an event that can be wrong or right, or it can be an agent that can be either blameworthy or praiseworthy. In the article, Singer suggests the agent that is praiseworthy because of giving to charity but not blameworthy because of not giving to charity is wrong.

He stands out that the agent that does not provide to charity should be blameworthy, in which case Singer establishes charity as a duty. In his arguments, Singer is well direct, and hence, we should be offering help to all those who are physically near to us. This is because of the close proximity. The only flaw that is there in many people is because they do not get the motivation to help someone that is far away, even though the person needs a lot of assistance. This, in essence, demonstrates that there are suffering and challenges in the world.

(Singer, 2005, p.633). Singer also