Famine, Affluence and Morality Essay

The essay will be presented by means of giving a brief explanation on the argument of Singer that giving charity is, to some degree, obligatory. After a detailed yet concise explanation of the same, an exploratory presentation will be given on account of the claim whether or not the number of people who give can affect how much a person is obliged to give. The gist of Singer’s argument that giving charity is obligatory is founded on practical and moral grounds. First, the basic mantra that no one is an island proves to be true in all occasions and at all times. As applied to the existence of world governments, the international arena nowadays is viewed as global society. All countries are viewed as part of one’s political philosophy thereby formulating and implementing foreign policy of nations. Thus, a country may get involved of what is happening in other parts of the world. There is no doubt that some countries of the other side of the globe are not in good condition. Famine, pestilences, extreme poverty and calamities brought about by man or by nature exist that affect a large number of people. As Singer argued, the suffering and death of other people are not inevitable and not unavoidable. Therefore, there is hope that those people that are considered victims of the aforementioned catastrophes can be saved and comforted in order to survive. In matters of moral standards, it is proper to help those who are in need, may it be private and public in manner. In other words, private citizens who are in the position to help those countries that are plagued with myriad calamities can do the same and at the same time, the government can formulate and implement laws that give aids for such victims of natural and man-made calamities. In addition, it is also practical to help those who are in need in times of difficulties since man by nature is logical and reasonable. Man can choose between what is good and evil and most likely, helping others is a natural act. On the point of view of countries, Singer pointed out that it is not beyond the capacity of the richer nations to give enough assistance to lessen any further suffering to very small proportions. Wealthy countries hold the power to help poor nations since they are able to do so. It is up to these countries if they would give financial, technological and material aid. But if it is in the power of richer nations to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, they should, based on moral grounds, do the same. People are obliged to help not because they need to, but because they have the capabilities to do so and their conscience counts a lot knowing that countries who are suffering myriad dilemmas are not unknown in the international community. Moreover, giving charity is obligatory since those who are capable to do so are looked upon by others that cannot possibly share their scant resources. Yet, no matter how we rationalize our willingness to help is of no moment on the fact that some people are dying everyday in some countries of which they could have lived if not for our selfish interests and motives. What Singer is trying to convey is that since it is within the power of a rich nation to help poor countries, there should be no reason not to help. On account of the claim on whether or not c, the arguments of Singer provided more on the negative. This is because what Singer wants to convey is that all people who has the capabilities to contribute for those who are in need must give as much as they can without affecting their own needs for the reason that more people are in need everyday. It is the safest way to help other people for we are not sure that all people who could afford to contribute charity would respond to the call to give. Hence, the number of people who give can not affect how much a person is obligated to give as charitable contribution. It is true that some people who can afford to give may not contribute much for the poor and the needy. However, Singer made it to the point that if people accept any principle of impartiality, universality, equality, or whatever it is, they cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from them or that they are far away from him. With that, giving help is both voluntary and obligatory for the benefit of all people. If there will be less people who will give contribution, then there should be an increasing efforts to invite those who can afford to share their blessings. One has only to ask this question to see the absurdity of the view that numbers lessen obligation. As Singer emphasized, the question should be: should one consider less obligation to pull the drowning child out of the pond if on looking around one could see other people, no further away than where a person is who have also noticed the child but are doing nothing? In this case, Singer is telling us that helping others should be dependent on the presence of other people but what is important is no matter how other people would react to a given situation wherein help is needed, one should help as much as possible. It is always proper to give more than what is needed as long as available and no equally important needs could be affected. The more we can give, the more we can possibly help in a given situation. It does not matter if there are more people who contributed to a charitable institution as long as a particular person gave more help. Aside from that, the amount of help that we should give should not be dependent on the number of people who will give since there are increasing needs in the society. Those who are poor needs more help everyday and due to population increase their number will also increase. Imagine how chaotic a society is, that does not care to look at other people’s welfare. The responsibility of each one of us is to make sure that there are no individuals who are suffering from too much poverty if we really understood the meaning of moral and ethical standards. People cannot tolerate the presence of children who are homeless and parents who are jobless. Therefore, giving much for charitable institutions is a must, hence obligatory. The rules and regulations as well as the laws that the government implements are useless if there are poor people who are crying for relief just to survive from too much poverty. The help that people could give should not be limited to what is needed, but to how much one could contribute. Singer also argued that moral attitudes are shaped by the needs of society, and no doubt society needs people who will observe the rules that make social existence tolerable. However, the moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. While it is true that it is quiet inessential to help people outside one’s own society, it is also unacceptable that a society disregard the call for giving charity. Hence, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society. Moreover, the people knew what to do. If they require others in giving charity, they must think that it is up to these people on how they will follow the moral code since asking them to do so could be absurd. Helping others must be done on the people’s own free will under the guidance of moral philosophy and ethical principles. The message of Thomas Aquinas was even mentioned by Singer on account of the fact that as God do not intend men to suffer; sharing to others must be practiced without counting on who should give more or less to the poor and the needy. Thus, the purpose of God is to prevent misery such that those who have more in life must give something to the poor and the needy. The distribution of resources as mandated by law must not prevent the purpose to cater the needs of all people. In connection with that, the burden of proof of showing how their refusal will bring about governmental action is on those who refuse to give. Finally, giving privately is not enough, and that we ought to be campaigning actively for entirely new standards for both public and private contributions to famine relief. This means that constant campaigns to help other people in need do not prevent an individual to give more despite the fact that the number of people who gave contributions increased. To reiterate what Singer had argued, the strong version of which that required people to prevent bad things from happening unless in doing so they would be sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, does seem to require reducing their selves to the level of marginal utility. This claim for that matter is the correct one. Thus, the number of people who give cannot affect how much a person is obligated to give. People are free to give what they could afford for charitable circumstances.