Peter Singer has written an essay, which has influenced a number of ethicists, psychology scholars, and philosophers. In his work, Singer (1972) discusses the relationship between morality, wealth, and humanitarian aid, all of which he ties together to present a simple, yet effective argument. The main point of the essay is to demonstrate how the inaction of those with power and money in the face of human suffering is purely immoral.
Even if a rich person is in New York City and the one who needs resources or financial aid to survive lives in Africa, it does not reduce the wealthy man’s moral obligation to help. One of the author’s primary arguments is “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer 1972, 231). Extremely rich individuals have an enormous surplus of wealth that can be distributed to help others and save countless lives without taking much away from their own comfort or existing lifestyle. Thus, the main thesis of Singer’s essay is that society should not accept or try to justify affluent people’s disregard for human suffering, which inevitably leads to a lack of efforts to reduce it.
There are various counterarguments that may stand in opposition to Singer’s points made in the essay. However, the most compelling and realistic counterargument is that the money the rich will distribute to poor parts of the world and even bad neighborhoods in developed countries will not necessarily save lives or even help. If one chooses to examine morality under the prism of consequentialism, then the only ethically correct thing the wealthy can do is ensure that their actions lead to the most positive outcome. In the majority of cases of donations, the money gets stolen, misplaced, or wasted due to corruption, mismanagement, or a lack of infrastructure in a certain part of the world. Poverty is a result of issues that span generations and cannot be resolved by throwing money at them. Therefore, it can be argued that Singer’s argument is essentially an oversimplification of possible solutions to global issues.
Reference
Singer, Peter. 1972. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.”Philosophy & Public Affairs 1(3): 229-243. Web.