Singers Famine

Singers Famine

Upon reading the piece by Peter Singer it becomes clear that he feels that it is our moral responsibly to help the people of the world who are suffering from the “lack of food, shelter, and medical care” (Singer 231). He goes on to say that thankfully it is in our power to “Prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care without sacrificing anything of [comparable] moral significance” (Singer 232). This is where I take issue with what he is saying. I do agree with his overall idea that we should help those who are suffering, and at times everyone could do a bit more to help, but I don’t think that those who are privileged should have to give up things to level the playing field. Also how can moral significance be defined so simply as he uses it? I feel that what is morally significant to one person, could hold no significance to another person. For example certain people may be willing to go with less because it has no effect on their overall wellbeing, and feeling about life. Where on the other hand if you have a person who does but high moral significance on “things” and they are told they need to give these “things” up it is going to greatly impact the mental state of that person. In turn lowering that person to the same place the people who are struggling are at. Though it is a good idea to help those who are less fortunate, this method that Singer is suggesting could lead to creating a society where everyone is equal but not living the best quality of life that they could otherwise be living.