This paper is regarding the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” written by Peter Singer. In this article Singer gives a critique on how famine can be prevented by individuals in rich countries helping the ones who are in need of the famine relief. Singer believes that we have moral obligations to act in a certain way like to become committed to helping others in need. My views contradict to Peter Singer’s theory as it challenges the demanding and less demanding principles of Singer through analyzing and comparing them. Peter Singer argues that people, especially the ones that live in wealthy countries must alter their inception of morality and act upon that. Singers theory of moral values and principles suggest that individuals actions …show more content…
This principle may limit the moral values and actions that one can take. Singers less demanding principle sets restricts to the one lending a helping hand. It gives freedom to not devote to sacrificing something in order to prevent bad things. Nevertheless, individuals should commit to preventing bad things from happening and this should not be limited to doing so only when the loss is nothing morally significant. We are obligated to help others however without altering into the ones who need the help. Furthermore an objection to my analysis can be that it is up to the person to sacrifice something in order to prevent an unfortunate event but this is a weak opposition. The reason why this principle and this opposition is weak can be seen through the example of the drowning child. This principle gives the idea that it is not necessary to sacrifice yourself and your outfit in order to save the child from drowning. However, one cannot be thinking about how his charming suit will be ruined while a child is drowning. His priority must be to save the child or else that would defeat the concept of morality. This is because the comparison of a charming suit cannot be more powerful than a child 's life. One can repurchase his suit but can never bring back a