Crisis Of Famine In Bengal. Peter Singer's Views On Our Duties Of Foreign Aid And Charity - Research Paper Example

Peter puts these arguments forward by way of two principles; one of them proposes the extent to which death and suffering is bad irrespective of the cause, which ranges hunger, deficient housing and inadequate. Secondly, he argues that one is obligated to mitigate morally bad state of affairs if they are able to do that without having to sacrifice that with another with the same moral importance (Singer, 1972). In his argument, Singer proclaims that it is only moral to help those in need with disregard to causing the same impact on the people.

The three counter-arguments given by Peter considering the ideas and facts of his moral reasoning entail the argument that the manner in which the affluent in Bengal are reacting towards the same issue is forthrightly unjustified concerning morally acceptable behaviors (Singer, 1972). The affluent as observed above have the moral responsibility of assisting the needy and trying what they can to bring them out of the situation. The counterarguments are presented in brief as follows: - that it is a bad occurrence that death and suffering are caused by malnourishment, home dwelling and issues to do with healthcare.

Secondly, that it is advisable for one who is in the position of helping by way of preventing a bad occurrence from taking place if this can happen without them giving up something of equal importance. Lastly, in such efforts one is required to have a say as a good deal as they can in the efforts to alleviate the plagues (Mulroney and Kingston, 2012). Marginal utility is a concept that describes the additional satisfaction that a consumer gets from benefiting from the consumption of one extra unit of any form of benefit.

Peter in his argument urges those in the position of helping to give up to the point of marginal utility and in this case, it is he point whereby if the individual gives up more it would cause them or their dependents as much suffering as they would be in the position of preventing a crisis in Bengal. Peter Singer therefore advises that only those in the position of preventing bad from happening without giving up something of equal importance are advised to do so (Singer, 1972). This is because if everyone went ahead and came in to help, there would be many excesses some of which could not be used and would simply go to a waste.

Peter does not think that is a problem but argues that it is not advisable for people to give at the same time but some form of organization should be formulated. The worst happens in a case where everyone came in to give but they gave less than they ought to have given (Mulroney and Kingston, 2012). Actually, the ideas of duty and charity are dynamic in Singer’s world and it begins from the Singer’s argument of the cause of suffering and death, which he attributes to lack of necessities like food, shelter and medical care.

He says that is it is within our powers to prevent these then surely we should (Singer, 1972). Sacrifice here mean without causing a significant bad thing to happen as the example he gives of a sight to a drowning child which ought to be saved as opposed to the cloths being ruined. The article is recognized as a fascinating experience for the art of giving and not the reverse,