ipl-logo

Comparing Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

1773 Words8 Pages

Here I will lay out each philosophers viewpoint and then highlight some of the differences between the two, as well as draw my own conclusion as to which method is more compatible with my own stance. Perhaps I offer a personal view that may incorporate own perspective independent of either. Adopting a utilitarian approach in his 1971 essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer makes an argument for personal responsibility. He feels under necessity to speak about the lack of interest from those with the ability to help, each of us should extend our resources as far as they will reach to help others in need. Asserting his position that humanity has an obligation and ethical responsibility to recognize the need of others and give as …show more content…

Additionally, the stringency of the application of Singer’s utilitarian principle requires that 100% of information about 100% of possible outcomes of an action be a known in order for his methodology to be effective. When contemplating issues as large as world hunger, it seems impossible to anticipate every possible outcome before acting. Related to this, I pose a more precise set of questions to Singers methodology of consequentialism. If one is not able to make the most beneficent decision, what decision are they to make? Are they required to make a choice anyway, and if so, what are the criteria for that process inside the consequentialist viewpoint? Unaddressed as even a possible outcome in the text, would acting in a way contrary to the principle still be considered acting within the boundaries defined by the method? If an action has taken place in a manner undefined by the principle, has the principle then changed? I ask these questions because it seems unlikely that Singers’ principles could ever be fully applied to society. If Singer, himself, admits the application of his methods to be implausible, is his ideology even …show more content…

Singer’s utilitarianism requires a person’s moral responsibility for their actions be determined by the end consequences of that action, while O’Neill holds that responsibility of the individual is determined by the intention of their action. Under Singer, an individual must know the ends of their action will be beneficent to a famine situation. O’Neill believes that the fact that you are providing aid in itself is the action you should be judged through. Thus Kantian ethics sees one’s intentions as crucial to the morality of one’s acts, whereas utilitarian ethics sees only the results of one’s actions as

Open Document