In this paper, I argue that Singer’s strong principle of sacrifice is flawed due to its over -demandingness. Singer denotes that as affluent individuals, we have a moral obligation to sacrifice up to the point of comparable moral significance to help those in absolute poverty. This essay will argue against Singer’s strong principle as it is psychologically too strong of an argument to be morally obliging.
Singer’s argument exhorts us to give based on the controversial principle of comparable moral significance, to donate any income beyond that which is marginally necessary. Singer justifies this based on the knowledge that the suffering of a poor person should be no less significant to that of an affluent one (Singer, 1972). Thus,
…show more content…
Rather, Singer’s weaker version is more plausible, that one should take necessary action where we are able to prevent bad states of affairs without sacrificing morally significant (Singer, 1972). It is clear then that moral autonomy to pursue one’s own interests is something that can constitute moral significance. An individual is morally free not to devote themselves full time to prevent famine. It is important to make a distinction between the freedom to pursue one’s own interests and the freedom of wasting resources on excessive luxuries. Singer concedes there is no justification for the purchasing of stylish new clothes as any benefit to this purchase would be sparingly little compares to the benefit it would make for the poor in donating that money (Singer, 1972). Therefore, there is an implicit requirement that should be made in furthering Singer’s weak principle. While we are able to exercise autonomy and have the freedom to choose to pursue one’s own interests, we should do this with a knowledge that this has some chance of yielding socially beneficial