Consideration is proportional to the amount of suffering an animal can experience, and since humans are capable of experiencing more suffering than a pig, we should receive more consideration.
Singer seems to be saying that if we all contributed the same amount there would be no need for certain people to give more than others. Singer says that we have an individual obligation to make as much positive difference as possible.
Most specifically he discusses the responsibility of affluence countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia to send aid to refugees from East Bengal, at the cost of not developing less morally important goods such as the Concorde Program or the Sydney Opera House.
This claim is that all species are able to have bad things happen to them, not just humans. To illustrate with an example, suppose you saw a child playing in the street and a car approaching rapidly. However, Singer acknowledges that if people believe that their personal contribution is dependant on the contribution of others then the result may be that everyone wont contribute at Singer famine affluence and morality thesis.
Singer presents the example of a child drowning in a lake, and questions whether he has more responsibility to help the child if there are others in the same proximity who are doing nothing. Although Singer does make this distinction, he seems to ignore the fact that most people will decide according to their own personal wants, how much is too much.
If people are obligated to give as much as they can bear without causing harm to themselves or their family, most people will find an excuse to not contribute because it effects them more than they think they can handle.
This portrayal of humans seems to present the notion that we can decide that our own well-being is more important than others. If doing good causes the marginal harm to be greater than the marginal utility, then we would be contributing to problems even though our attempts to help were for the positive benefit of others.
He is obviously stating that all humans, from East Bengal to Europe, are equal yet he leaves animals out of the equation. Assuming that it does, we ought to give until the suffering that we prevent is less than that which we experience ourselves.
If we cannot consider human concerns ahead of animal concerns then how can we consider the concerns of ourselves and our family ahead of the concerns of starving people? However, a pig suffers less and is due proportionately less consideration.
At the point where the costs become to great, does Singer advocate ending the attempt to help others? To illustrate again, with an example, consider the case above, except replace the child with a small mouse.
This new claim does not contradict, or even say anything whatsoever about his first claim - it merely defines the scope of it by making clear what things can and can not be the recipient of bad things.
We ought to give to a pig as much as we must give to a person in Bengal because both have the ability to suffer. You are on an important telephone call, but by interrupting your call, and yelling out to the child, you can prevent an otherwise inevitable pedestrian automobile collision.
Second, it appears for these two articles to be consistent, this principle must also apply to our interactions with other sentient beings.
Ending the killing of animals would cause countless humans to starve and would negate the belief in "comparable moral importance.
Singer continues to assert that aid should be rendered until the costs to the donator outweigh the benefits to the receiver. In his second article Singer simply makes another claim, which can be taken, to compliment and clarify the utilitarian framework discussed above.
Singer is well aware that the death of the mouse might not be worse. Such a claim seems very nearly indisputable, since certainly kicking a dog is bad for it.
Singer states in "All Species Are Equal" that we should not kill animals for food, or hunt because it causes pain to animals. This seems a bit contradictory in the premise of the two papers. Thus, since the Bengalis are capable of experiencing the same amount of suffering as we are, their suffering and ours should be given equal weight.
Under his philanthropy paper, the killing of animals for food should be permitted because it benefits people all around the world who rely on animals for sustenance; without the killing of animals for food even more people would starve to death than there already are.
In more general terms he is getting at the fact that we must prevent as much bad from happening as possible, up until the point at which we start to fall victim to a moral harm comparable to the worst moral harm that exists.
Thus these two theses are consistent because they are consistent with the broader principle, we should give until the amount of suffering that we prevent weighed in proportion to the type of sentient being involved is greater than the amount we experience.
However, given a few assumptions that appear to underlie these articles, his two theses are reconciled and consistent. Singer, however, can moderate the impact of this second assumption with a third, which derives from his first article.
Singer also makes the distinction between the way we as a society are supposed to contribute and the way individuals contribute.Created Date: 9/9/ PM. "Singer-Famine, Affluence, and Morality" John Torresala Peter Singer seems to vacillate between his thesis concerning philanthropy and his thesis presented in "All Species Are Equal.".
"Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is an essay written by Peter Singer in and published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in It argues that affluent persons are morally obligated to donate far more resources to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in Western mi-centre.com essay was inspired by the starvation of Bangladesh.
Download thesis statement on "Famine, Affluence and Morality", article by Peter Singer. in our database or order an original thesis paper that will be written by one of our staff writers and delivered according to the deadline.
Peter Singer: "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" I. Singer’s Main Aim Singer tries to show that we, in affluent countries like the U.S., have a moral obligation to give far more than we actually do in international aid for famine relief, disaster relief, etc.
PETER SINGER Famine, Affluence, and Morality As I write this, in November Ig7I, people are dying in East Bengal from lack of food, shelter, and medical care. The suffering and death that are occurring there now are not inevitable, not unavoidable in.Download