Morality of Cultural Sensitivity

I agree with Singer that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (231) and we have some sort of moral responsibility to alleviate those issues. However, I become uneasy reading his second and third arguments where he addresses only acting if it is “without sacrificing anything of [comparable moral significance]” (231) to the person giving aid. He fails to address the moral significance of this aid to the people he intends to help; in this article the people of East Bengal. He acknowledges the distance of these people, but not their perspectives.

I believe that there has to be a degree of cultural sensitivity when providing aid to another country. It is often incredibly challenging to ask for help, but can be even more difficult when help is thrust upon you, without asking. He fails to address moral implications for the culture when he states, “Another, more serious reason for not giving to famine relief funds is that until there is effective population control” (240).  This does not provide any information about the Bengal culture and we don’t know their opinion about population control. Assuming that nobody wants to starve, the people of that nation should have the option to express if they are adverse to the conditions for famine relief. Approaching the aid of foreign countries from a learning, dialogical standpoint helps to avoid cultural imperialism, which I find is a dangerous reality of many worldly relief agencies. Even if you are acting with the best of intentions, aid without further cultural competence and sensitivity can still be detrimental.

I believe this point could enhance Singer’s argument, thus providing additional perspective to the vague term “moral significance”.