Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

People who are rich enough to donate money to relief poorer countries, shouldn’t find it necessary to donate money. An Individual is entitled to every decision he or she makes with there money. There are enough issues in every country and that every individual faces on a daily basis, that justifies someone not donating money. In no way do you need to donate money, but if you are, it is necessary to address the big and small issues regarding your own family, town, or country first. My argument that addresses Peter Singer’s, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, raises many points that successfully show’s the flaws in Peter Singers argument on how people should forego a purchase they don’t necessarily need, and donate that money to someone or something

Singer argument is trying to show the global issue at hand with people dying from lack of resources. Singer is shocked with the lack of help East Bengal has gotten, when the poverty and lack of resources is pretty well known. When discussing how people should address world issues and what there moral responsibilities should be, Singer proclaims that if you have the power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, shouldn’t you morally do it (Singer, 231). This argument declares that people should feel morally obligated to help with any global issue, as long as it doesn’t affect anything that is of comparable moral importance to you. In support of this argument, Singer talks about donating money instead of going to the store and buying something that you want, but don’t necessarily need. If you don’t need the item at the store, you shouldn’t buy it, and instead donate that money to a country in need. If you look at the every purchase morally in the lens that Singer is trying to present, then you would question every purchase you have ever made and will make. Asking yourself do I really need this, because if I don’t I can possibly save a life or lives of people who need clothes, food, and shelter. The argument Singer is making, really questions

Most likely there will never be a world where everyone living in it has equal opportunity and the same amount of money. Singer makes it seem like if everyone donates what they can to countries and people who live in poverty, then the world become this perfect place. It sounds negative, but there will never be a place where everyone is the same. There will always be class distinctions, where people live in struggle and succeed. This doesn’t mean people should let the poorer people struggle, and not give them any assistance. Individuals should help lower class people when they can, but there needs to be an understanding of whats possible and what’s not. Along with this, there will always be people who disregard the laws or standards set. Maybe Singer could convince a good amount of people on the idea of not spending money on things you don’t need and donating that money to people in dire need. But he wouldn’t be able to convince everyone, and people will find it unfair and unnecessary to donate there money if other people who have the same financial wealth aren’t donating. Humans natural instinct is to succumb to what everyone else is doing and compare themselves to others. If someones neighbor was making the same salary as them, but was’t donating money that would have to bother the person. Watching them spend the same amount of money you donated, on luxurious