UID: 3035276854

Tutor: Brian Wong

Tutor group: group 20
In Famine, Affluence and Morality (1972), Singer bring out his point of view of
charity and duty. This paper will identify and evaluate his rationale and hence explain
why the argument is unsound in certain aspects.
Singers main contention is that if it is within our power to prevent something bad
from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we
ought to do so, while a moderate version replace anything of comparable moral
importance by anything morally significant (Singer 1972: 231) It is supported by
four premises.
First, the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical
care are bad.
Second, one morally must save a drowning child if one will only suffer the slight
inconvenience of getting pants muddy. Because this is insignificant when compared
with the death of a child.
Third, the distance in space and time are irrelevant to determine what one ought to do.
Fourth, presence of other individuals who could help is irrelevant.
Fifth (hidden premise), helping other frequently does not lessen the ones obligation
unless it cost something morally significant to him.
So here is his deduction process. Not helping the drowning child due to some morally
insignificant cost is bad (premise 2). Then, by premise1, 3 and 4, there is no
significant difference between drowning of boy in the pond example and the case of
famine or other people getting harm, so do our obligations. Because they are also bad
in nature (premise1), while even the needy may be far away (premise3) and involve
more bystanders (premise4) are irrelevant. The hidden premise further support that
this process (donation) should be keep carrying on. Therefore since they are equal in
moral dimension, it is also bad not to help other that if it is within our power to
prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable
moral importance. This is the main contention of Singer, and the plausibility of the
premises and deduction will be discussed one by one.
Arguably, the first premise is almost certainly true and hence not the focus.
Premise two is plausible in some extent. Comparing a life of a child, clothing is not
significant. If one refrain from helping the child indicates that he place few hundred
dollar before a life. This selfishness should consider wrong. From other way round, if
someone willing to sacrifice a few thousand, we proclaim him as virtuous. It does
show that he has done more than he ought to do. Moreover, people who cherish
freedom may agree that they are entitled to keep their income. Therefore it is not
totally uncontentious.
Considering the deduction following premise 2, Singer assumed that we will have
intuition that we should help the kid at the cost of our clothes. However, let assume

other premise hold, the entailed conclusion which we should donate almost all of our
money is not intuitively sound. Therefore, the argument actually first assume a
premise is correct as it is intuitively correct, and then deploy it to prove an intuitively
correct notion is wrong. If a statement is correct whenever it is intuitively correct, we
can do the argument another way round. i.e. because the presence of obligation of
donating almost all of the money is not intuitively sound, it violates the freedom that
we can make the choice of our life. By Modus Tollens, we do not obliged to save the
child. In short if we can prove that our intuition is wrong, more effort should be put to
prove the thought experiment is not refutable instead of mere intuition.
Premise 3 is plausible. It is not justified for having less obligation simply because
geographical distance if we are able to aid. For example, we are as wrong as harming
a person far away or nearby. But distance will always entail other factors. First
whether we almost truly understand the pain of the victim. The reason why we would
almost certainly help the drowning child rather than the distant kid in Africa is that we
can see and hear the suffering of the child which empathy will hence develop more
readily. So we will consider not helping him as immoral because the decision
indicated that our selfishness is so overwhelming that can defeat this great deal of
empathy. Consider the needy far away, only a less amount of sympathy is at play.
Though the sufferings of the two victims are the same, the feeling aroused not.
Therefore, they are actually two distant situations. Singer of course notice this
distinction, he state that, The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we
have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but
this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be
further away.(Singer, 1972, p.232) But it actually indicate that it is different between
helping a dying person nearby and one far away. Given premise2 is true, the notion
still cannot extend to people far away, at least, the obligation should be weaker.
Distance does not matter, but feeling does. Whether it is as wrong as drowning case is
questionable.
Concerning the premise4, it is quite true. Everyone who has the ability to help is
obligated but in different magnitude. The one who have higher ability (more wealthy)
should have a higher obligation as the cost are comparably insignificant. Even so, the
responsibility of people financially less able remain if they do nothing when other do
not. Since this premise can hold, the conclusion will contain less qualification, like
presence of individuals who are responsible for the bad is also irrelevant.
Concerning the hidden premise, Singer establish that premise 2 is correct, then he
extend that not perform it again (until it is morally significant) is also wrong. So, there
is a hidden premise that, having done good thing repeatedly do not excuse ones duty.
Singer did prove part of it is true implicitly. Singer explain that one should not only
donate the amount which can eradicate the famine if everyone has done so. Because
in reality, others would not do so. Hence the obligation to prevent wrong remain. It
shows that people have the obligation of keep donating.
However it is still questionable. Premise 2 is a condition that one do not sacrifice
something insignificant, on a sense that both insignificant to the kids life and his own
quality of life. While the conclusion that we should donate repeatedly until
comparatively insignificant, it is still insignificant to other peoples life but significant
to ones own quality of life. This should be considered as two distinct situation. One

cannot say that eat taking 0.01g drug is harmless, and hence taking 10g is also
harmless. Of course on the side of the balance, the benevolence produced is also
growing, but again it is another situation. Different in degree is different in kind. If we
consider we should keep donating until the addition donation is morally significant, it
does not align with the first premise, too. Because every additional donation is still
insignificant compare donors quality of life, which mean the donor should still keep
donating. It is the sum of all donation is significant but not every single bit. This
qualification cannot spare harm from the donor and hence cannot make the situation
equal to that of premise two. In short, the thought experiment can consider a single
element of an object, proving the element contain a property do not prove the whole
object contain that property too.
In conclusion, extending from a single event to the situation of whole world is
somehow containing fault. Because different condition of affairs always entail
fundamental difference.
Word count: 1286
References
Singer, P.(1972). Famine, Affluence and Morality. Philosophy and Public
Affairs, 1(3), 229-243.