In the reading, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer brings up the idea that death and strife as a result of minimal food, shelter, and medical care are intrinsically bad. In said argument, he claims that people can reach the same view by different routes. Singer never clarifies what these different routes could be, leaving questions lingering in the reader’s head. Singer could be stating that these injustices are unacceptable because governments are unable or unwilling to provide aid to those in dire need of assistance. This interpretation ties into his previous argument when he criticized Britain and Australia for prioritizing supersonic transport and a new opera house over the lives of millions of Bengali refugees in need of aid. Singer disapproves of governments choosing to allocate money toward what he would consider selfish endeavors, when that same money could be used to diminish, or altogether stop suffering and death from occurring. Using that rationale, it would make sense to assume Singer believes people dying due to a lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad because it could be avoidable if governments did not ignore the cries for help from those in need.

Another argument Singer makes is that neither proximity nor distance should have an effect on who humanity provides aid for. He contextualizes this argument by giving the example of being morally required to help a Bengali ten thousand miles away just as much as needing to help a neighbor’s child. This argument is unrealistic due to the emotional reality of human nature. If humans were entirely objective beings, this argument would have backing, but one will always choose to help someone they have an emotional connection with over a stranger. This reality is not such a bad thing, as it shows the capability of human relation. The fact that a bond between two people can grow so strong that their relationship transcends the ideals of Singer’s moral philosophy is proof of the powerful, deep connection humans can create with one another. 

A thought experiment Singer proposes involves walking past a body of water and noticing a child drowning in it. His philosophy is that you are morally obligated to wade into the water and pull out the child. The result of this action is muddying one’s clothes, but because the child’s life is saved, the muddied clothes are considered insignificant. The deeper meaning derived from this allegory is that personal sacrifice is expected if it is possible to stop something worse than your sacrifice from occurring. If this ideal was put into action in the modern world, people would be expected to liquidate most of their possessions and empty the majority of their bank accounts in order to send as much relief as possible to Gaza. Palestinians are currently being blown to pieces because of the mass genocide that is occuring. The sacrifice of wealth in order to save the lives of those being killed in Gaza is not only necessary, but expected if one takes Singer’s argument to heart.

Works Cited

Singer, Peter. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Oxford University Press. 2016.

drive.google.com/file/d/1phfsgFTQozldIcxFskgpPtLkC70z69aD/view