Singer moral principle. Peter Singer and greatest happiness principle - Book Report/Review Example

Peter Singer moral principle Peter Singer's article 'Famine, Affluence and Morality' is an interesting read even though it is difficult to agree totally with his point of view. His view "If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it." does not sound very practical. In this article he has emphasized on two issues. One issue is an analogy provided by him. In this analogy he mentions that if a child is drowning in a pond then we should save him if there is no fear of risking our lives in that act. If we really face such a situation then it would without doubt be a moral obligation to save the child. He says that there would only be fear of dirtying one's clothes, which is insignificant when compared to someone's life. This is a very moral action to do and we should ignore trivial factors while extending our help to the child in need. In fact the thought of dirtying our clothes would not come in our minds in normal circumstances, the instant reaction would be to save that child especially when there is no one else to save him. Peter Singer has given this analogy to make us understand the need of helping others. In the article in discussion his main aim is to influence the readers to help during crisis situations like famine. This article was written in the year 1971 when people were dying in East Bengal due to famine. Through this article his main aim was to convince the affluent western population to indulge in charity. He meant that if we are affluent, and while spending an amount of our money is not going to put strains in our pockets then we should make donations wholeheartedly. This is not a practical action to propagate. It's good to involve oneself in charity but this does not mean that one should be guilty of one's affluence and lend helping hand to all the social causes even when we are not a part of the society in which help is needed. When the immediate society in which we live faces a crisis situation then our emotional attachment to it compels us to go out of the way to lend a helping hand. But when a distant society is in need of help then it is an inherent human nature to not feel as connected and obliged to help when compared to the crisis situation of one's immediate society. Since we are not able to see or feel the pain, it is difficult to react as much as those who are suffering. This cannot be perceived as an immoral activity as stated by Singer. Reacting naturally should not be a reason of guilt from any aspect. Singer finds no difference between the distances, which practically sounds very illogical. The analogy that he has given to support his point does not look well connected to his main area of concern. In his analogy he has mentioned about a drowning child for whom there is only one person to save. While in the premise that he has adopted, to support the charity for famine he is asking to help when there are innumerable people to extend help. There is a vast difference in the nature of these circumstances. Hence one cannot act in both these circumstances with same urgency. All human beings are accustomed of following a moral scheme, which is difficult to combat. What is naturally present in us cannot be changed easily. A handful of people thinking on the lines of Singer can still make an effort and adapt to a different moral scheme more effortlessly than others but the entire humankind will not be able to bring a difference in their mindset so easily no matter how affluent they are. Hence it is very difficult to change the moral framework of human beings. There is a vast difference between the attitude of duty and the attitude of charity. To follow the norms set by one's society becomes imperative for everyone. Especially when not following such norms is going to result in any kind of punishment, one sometimes even acts against ones wishes or natural instincts. But in situations where there is going to be no reprimanding for acting in a particular way, people tend to prevent themselves from doing what 'should be done'. No matter how affluent a person is, practically he always tries to save as much as possible. Just being able to eat wholesome meals everyday, wearing good clothes and attaining all the luxuries of life is not the only necessities of a man. He loves to see his bank balance. He loves to keep something not only for himself but also for his future generation. It is rightly said that an ocean consists of drops of water. Though there are innumerable drops of water in the ocean, each and every drop is precious. Similarly even when a person has sufficient money, it does not look extra to him. In such circumstances indulging in charity is considered a good virtue by him but overindulgence in charity threatens him. Indulging in charity whose cause does not directly affect him looks irrelevant to him. So it is very impractical of Singer to think that we are obliged to spend even when spending is not negatively affecting our wealth. However if we think from a different point of view we find that Singer was quite ahead of his time in 1971. His thought process propagated to think of others if we want a world to be a better place to live in. He was thinking of a future where there is happiness all around. If we start thinking of future from now, then only can we shape it in the way we want it to be. Things take time to develop and if we want to do anything we should do it now and not wait for some other time. There are enough chances to be generous and we should utilize the opportunity of being of help to others and not wait for a better chance. Thus instead of thinking that the people suffering from famine in Bengal is none of our concern and we would help only when people will suffer closer to our place of living is being a little cunning. Through his stand on this issue we should think that if there is an attitude to help then it should be irrespective of the cross cultural borders. The same god has made all of us. When god has not differentiated between human beings then we should also consider everyone equal irrespective of geographical or cultural differences. If this means changing our moral framework, then we should not hesitate to change it because this change would be for the betterment of our inner self. Our inner self should be a reflection of a higher spirit. Giving even when it is not affecting us financially does not come naturally to human beings. To fight our natural instincts in order to attain a higher position would be like an achievement of milestone. In order to prove ourselves brave we should try to attain this personality trait. We fear that we if spend our money on charity then very little will be left with us. All of us love our lives and ourselves very dearly. This is the reason why we try to keep as much money with ourselves as possible. If we value our lives so much, then shouldn't we dedicate it to do noble deeds In this context noble deeds mean helping those to whom we are not even directly attached. It also means helping those irrespective of the geographically differences. Further it can be said that in this era of globalization, the world has become a global village. Distance is a word, which is becoming extinct day by day. With the help of different media especially a plethora of 24 hours news channel we get to see the news immediately as it happens irrespective of which corner of the world something significant is taking place. In situations like famine we get to see everything in great detail. Needless to say if we see something by our eyes we are naturally going to get affected by it and when it is affecting us then it means we have started having sympathy for it. If we our sympathizing then we should express our concern by donating money which is more than our requirements. How can we as human beings be so heartless to have proper meals when we have seen famine stricken children longing for a single morsel of food by our own eyes After seeing such a tragedy won't we want their trauma to end If we want that, then can't we do something for them Why wait for others. Let's be the leaders of our inner reforms. It is always better to be leader than a follower. We should try to influence others rather than give others a chance to influence us. Each one of us secretly desire to be a leader in our studies or in our jobs but we get less opportunities to prove ourselves as there are numerous others fighting the same battle. In this case when we are getting a chance of being leaders of personality enhancement and reformation of our moral frameworks then why to shy away from it. If we put ourselves in the shoes of those people who are suffering then we would know how it feels to know that people are not helping us thinking that there are others to do so. All of us have a responsibility of transforming ourselves into good human beings then why give only others a chance to do so. If human nature is to be selfish, then we should be selfish in the terms of enrichment of our personalities not our bank balance. Bank balance is important but if we are affluent, we should not wait for others to proceed before engaging ourselves in a morally enriching deed. Since the government does not do enough for the people who are suffering, the contributions made by the affluent class might force them to act more responsibly. Hence there are three positive consequences of charity. The first is becoming morally more affluent; the second is influencing the government to work in a better manner. Whereas the third is to control slowing development and starvation. Hence by our charity if we are not getting negatively affected and if others are getting positively affected then we should indulge in it. We should have a sense of duty towards others and this duty should not be dependent on whether others are helping or not. This premise of Singer is to a great extent attached to the greatest happiness principle. In fact both these premises are different ways of supporting the same concept. Singer's way of explaining and supporting the idea of helping others is similar to that of Jeremy Bentham, who was the man behind the greatest happiness principle. This principle also points at hunger and poverty, which is one of Singer's chief concerns. Improvement to ensure maximum happiness to the human beings by removing the ills is the chief premise of greatest happiness principle. Just as Singer feels that if it is within our capacity to help others we should do it, Bentham stresses on the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Both the viewpoints are related to the moral philosophy and aims at changing the moral framework of human beings. Both use utilitarian approaches. To explain this principle Bentham has used the example of a child and elaborated on how his mother brings him up while Singer has also used the analogy of a child, who is drowning. There have been a great number of objections of both the premises on logical grounds and the critics have felt in both the instances that it is not possible to attain the results that are being desired. One of the differences is that, the moral objections of the premise of Peter Singer are minimal while there are a few moral objections to the greatest happiness principle. The arguments against the greatest happiness principle is that happiness relates to pleasure and pleasure has to do more with illusion rather than moral. Singer's premise can be said to be an extension of Singer's project. In all his endeavors Singer's effort is to sow the seed of higher moral awakening. He has advocated that we should follow high moral standards to deal with all matters concerning public issues. Hence the premise 'If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.' and the Singer's project can be said to be closely related. We are being governed by science and technology. In 1971 the principle of distance would have been applied to a certain extent to nullify the obligation to help. But not anymore. With the advancement of media, we do not belong to different societies, rather we belong to one big society. Looking for ones own happiness is good but we should not forget the larger picture. Apart from ourselves we should try to keep those happy who are a part of our earth - which is our real home. So it sometimes looks impractical to follow what Peter Singer wants us to do. But we should find an alternate logical way if morality looks too ambiguous or irrational to us. The motto should be to be of help to others if its within our capacity. This way we would contribute to both ours as well as others' happiness. Works cited Famine, Affluence and Morality. 2008. 12 th March 2008 Read More