The Social and Ethical Modifications - Essay Example

Essay Question #3: Famine, Affluence, and Morality Essay Question #3: Famine, Affluence, and Morality According to Singer, it is theduty of every able person to assist the poor through donations of whatever kind. There are many poor people all over the world, and many people are dying of starvation and malnutrition. Affluent countries do donate huge amounts of cash towards supporting the poor and hungry people, as well as refugees. However, this amount is very little compared to the amount they spend on projects that they could otherwise survive without. Singer notes great infrastructural developments and transportation projects in first world countries that cost a lot more than is needed to feed the hungry people of some poor countries for more than a year. He drives home the point that people should feel obligated to as much as they can to support the poor and the suffering, and to counter any form of preventable evil (Singer, 1972). Moreover, Singer notes that there is confusion between charity and duty. People donate, but there is no guilt or moral wrongdoing in failure to donate towards the feeding of starving nations. This relationship between giving and morals should be put under the duty of a human being. It should be morally wrong not to give, and everyone should feel obligated to play a part towards the reduction of poverty and starvation in whichever way they deem fit. Supporting the poor and the hungry, as well as the displaced is not a responsibility of the charitable organizations only. People should give privately and should also pressure their governments to support the less fortunate countries. Instead of dwelling on leisure activities and spending money on items that do not add value to their lives, people should give to those who have nothing to eat. Singer notes the fact that the world is full of cases of war, famine and poverty. He is also aware of the affluent portion of the world’s population. His argument, therefore, is based on the assumption that it is bad for people to suffer or die to the lack of shelter, food or proper medical care. This assumption is supported by the principle that everyone has the power of preventing something bad from happening and should morally prevent it as long as the actions they take do not morally compromise any other thing, event or person. As such, as long as someone has the ability to prevent something bad from happening, they should do it. Singer’s principle works on the ideology that there is no excuse of distance or proximity that should stop someone from assisting someone who is need, such as the people starving in other nations. One should help someone they have never met or seen as much as they should assist someone they are in contact with. Moreover, the modern world is characterized by globalization such that the world has been reduced to a global village of sorts. As such, one can get information about whichever part of the world in real life, and identify with situations in physically distant countries and continents. The improved means of communication and transport also enable quick access to every region all over the world. In fact, the rate at which aid is taken to distant countries is more or less the same as the one that would be used to help someone within your vicinity. One should, therefore, not have an excuse for not helping people in distant geographical regions. However, Singer accepts the fact that it may be easier to personally identify with the problems of a person who is within your physical reach. You can also assess their situation and identify the best way in which to assist them. This is unlike someone who is miles away, whose situation can only be assessed over reliable media sources. However, giving to people should not be limited by their proximity. Everyone should feel obliged to do what they ought to do so as to prevent any evil as long as it does not lead to the sacrifice of anything with an equal moral importance. Another aspect that Singer uses to support his principle is that there should be no line of distinction whatsoever on cases in which you are the only one who could probably save the day, or you are among the millions in the same position. It does not matter whether you give on your own or whether others give too. The fact that other people are giving should not influence the amount that you donate. Moreover, whether you give or not is not a matter of whether you are on your own, or whether there are millions of other people doing the same. It is normal for the presence of numbers to affect the obligation that one has towards fighting a preventable evil. The mentality of people is that as long as there are more people involved, they should not contribute all they can, but should leave some portion for the others to contribute. This ideology of numbers lessening one’s obligation is morally wrong and should be avoided for the sake of the people suffering all over the world. Another aspect considered by Singer in terms of numbers is the feeling of guilt that is reduced when there are other people involved as well. It is common for people not to feel guilty because they can point out at some people who also failed to provide any support whatsoever. It should be in one’s morals to help the needy regardless of whether other people come in to support them. It is common practice for people to assume problems that do not affect them. However, they should ask themselves questions as to whether whatever they fail to do would be fair if they were in a similar situation. As such, people should not fail to mitigate a preventable evil just because other people in a similar situation as they are have held back assistance. Singer’s argument succeeds in pushing or enlightening people in helping the needy regardless of proximity or the presence of other people in a similar situation as they are in. This argument is essential in diminishing the misplaced views of people on mitigating preventable evils. The success of this argument is characterized by some conclusions that have to be evaluated so as to determine one’s obligations towards assisting the people who are suffering. One of these conclusions is determining how much one should give. The amount to give is determined by what one feels they ought to do, which can be less than what they really ought to do. As such, Singer suggests that one can go to the extreme of giving to the level where they reach their marginal utility. This level, however, would mean that they put themselves and their dependents at a level similar to that of the people suffering (Singer, 1972). This might be morally sacrificing the comfort of their dependents, although it is not necessary to get to such an extremity. If everyone was to live on marginal utility, there would probably be more than is needed in mitigating the evil involved. Another conclusion on this argument as posed by Singer is the responsibility of governments to support people with problems of hunger and malnutrition all over the world. Concerned people find it easy to push their governments and pose demonstrations on streets so as to push their parliamentary representatives to draft laws that support giving foreign aid. However, individuals should not depend on governments for the mitigation of evils. They should also contribute privately. Giving privately can even motivate governments to give more. However, when people in a country fail to give, a government might conclude that its people are not willing to help others, and will, therefore, reduce its aid to foreign countries (Singer, 1972). This argument also notes that poverty and hunger can be mitigated in various ways other than giving donations. Populations can be put in check to support the long-term mitigation of hunger and poverty. It is a fact that the world’s population is growing at a very high rate that will soon be unmanageable. However, one should not sit back and act according to this allegations, without putting any efforts towards resolving the current situation. One should give to curb the present evils as much as they intend to implement ideas on controlling the population growth. One counterargument to this ideology by Singer is one that would propose the use of global aid organizations such as the Red Cross, or those under the United Nations. Such organizations are the best in identifying the regions with famine, poverty and civil war, and that require aid. Singer would challenge this counterargument by suggesting that individuals should not only depend on these organizations so as to give aid. In fact, some people believe that in the event of famine or disease outbreaks, these organizations have the capacity to resolve them without the help of individuals. Some people believe that only affluent nations support such organizations through funding, and that the regular person should just sit back and watch them save the day. However, this is morally wrong and should not be used as a basis for someone to fail to contribute towards the resolving of a preventable evil. Everyone should do what they ought to do in their aim of supporting the needy people. It is in everyone’s power to prevent something bad from happening as long as it does not morally affect other things of the same importance (Singer, 1972). This ideology can be covered by the principle that proximity should not reduce the amount of aid that one should give. Some of the social and ethical modifications that I would apply to alleviate global poverty include the equal distribution of wealth within a particular region. This distribution would promote some form of socialism such that there would be no affluent or poor people, keeping everyone on the same level. These changes would have a greater effect on the global scale, and can be complemented by balancing trade and the revenues generated from it. The World Trade Organization should work on policies that not only promote the G7 nations, but even the developing countries. These policies should work towards fair distribution of foreign exchange and curb the exploitation of the developing countries by the developed ones. References Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 229-243. Read More