People should work hard to eradicate famine and other disasters; and help those less privileged with donations. A person’s charitable behavior is significantly determined by what the individuals close to him are expecting to do or what they are doing. An individual with more money than he needs to support his dependants and his individuals must work in conjunction with the government to end hunger. Peter Singer argues that people need to be doing their best so that starvation can be eradicated, and giving substantial amounts of donations and population control would be the best means to end hunger.
The author maintains his argument that individuals should do their best to help the needy within the community. Singer considers the act of giving as “supererogatory,” an act that is pleasant to do but is not illegal in avoiding doing it (Singer, 2020). He writes that people should spend money on helping them rather than buying clothes that are not useful. The writer argues that each person should be hardworking to combat the suffering other individuals undergo due to famine or other disasters (Burgess-Jackson, 2020). It is good to make other people happy; however, it is not wrong to avoid doing such an act. Imperative of duty informs people that they ought to do what is good but not wrong to do. Many people, such as students, fail to conquer with Smith’s arguments on famine relief (Sackris, 2021). From a moral standpoint, preventing the starvation of millions of individuals must be considered vital, like following societal norms. However, the author also stresses that population control is critical, as just donating money to Bengal refugees leads to postponing the problem to their children.
References
Burgess-Jackson, K. (2020). Famine, affluence, and hypocrisy. Philosophy, 10(7), 397-413. Web.
Sackris, D. (2021). Famine, Affluence, and Amorality. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 17(2). Web.
Singer, P. (2020). Famine, affluence and morality. In Global Justice (pp. 15-31). Routledge India. Web.