Summary Of Famine, Affluence, And Mortality By Peter Singer

Political philosophers are in disagreement regarding the perimeters of the ethical duty to provide international aid to impoverished countries. In his 1972 work, “Famine, Affluence, and Mortality”, Peter Singer argues that affluent countries have a moral duty to reduce suffering due to poverty and famine if doing so would not cause them to sacrifice anything morally significant or cause great harm. To illustrate his point, Singer introduces the hypothetical of a drowning child. Singers hypothetical says if a man was to notice a child drowning in a shallow pond then he has an ethical obligation to save the child even if that means that the man’s clothes would get muddy because it is much worse for the child to drown than to get your clothes muddy. Singer makes no distinction for proximity or number of people available to offer aid. In response to Singer’s article, Brian Barry’s “Humanity and Justice in Global Perspective” argues that the case for international aid is

In Barry’s final argument he claims that Singer’s drowning child hypothetical cannot extend to international aid because it does not account for situations where the aid would not relieve impoverished countries. The premises of Barry’s argument are as follows. First, historically, aid has been ineffective and wasteful due to poor organization. Barry concludes that aid should not be withheld but should be better organized and made more appropriate in relation to what the impoverished country needs. Second, Barry notes that others have argued better aid might result in a population increase which in turn would prolong suffering in countries that already cannot support their citizens. Barry’s adds that he believes this will not be the case since contraception will be more available once aid is given. He also notes that religious dogma that rejects contraception is becoming less strictly