# Study Notes: *Famine, Affluence, and Morality* by Peter Singer Peter Singer's seminal essay challenges traditional moral frameworks and argues for a radical rethinking of our obligations to alleviate suffering caused by famine and poverty. Below are comprehensive study notes that break down the key concepts, arguments, and implications of Singer's work. --- ## Key Concepts ### 1. **Moral Assumptions** Singer begins with two foundational assumptions: - **Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.** - This assumption is widely accepted and serves as the basis for his argument. - **If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.** - This principle underpins Singer's argument for moral responsibility. These assumptions are the backbone of Singer's argument. If you disagree with them, his conclusions may not resonate. --- ### 2. **The Principle of Moral Obligation** Singer argues that: - **Proximity and distance are morally irrelevant.** - It does not matter whether the person in need is physically close or far away. Modern communication and transportation make it possible to help distant individuals effectively. - **Numbers do not lessen individual responsibility.** - The fact that others can also help does not diminish your obligation to act. Imagine you see a child drowning in a shallow pond. Even if others are nearby and doing nothing, you are still morally obligated to save the child. --- ### 3. **Duty vs. Charity** Singer challenges the traditional distinction between duty and charity: - **Charity** is typically seen as optional and praiseworthy but not morally required. - **Duty**, on the other hand, is considered obligatory. - Singer argues that giving to famine relief should not be seen as charity but as a moral duty. Many people believe that spending money on luxuries is morally neutral. Singer argues that this is wrong when that money could save lives. --- ## Singer's Argument: Step-by-Step Breakdown ### 1. **The Bengal Emergency** Singer uses the famine in East Bengal as an example: - Millions of refugees are suffering due to poverty, natural disasters, and war. - Rich nations have the resources to alleviate this suffering but fail to act adequately. - Individuals in affluent societies also fail to contribute significantly to relief efforts. Britain spent £14,750,000 on aid to Bengal but over £275,000,000 on the Concorde project. This suggests misplaced priorities. --- ### 2. **The Drowning Child Analogy** Singer introduces a powerful analogy: - If you see a child drowning in a shallow pond, you are morally obligated to save them, even if it means muddying your clothes. - Similarly, affluent individuals are morally obligated to help famine victims, even if it means sacrificing luxuries. Use this analogy to understand Singer's argument about moral responsibility. The inconvenience of muddy clothes is trivial compared to the loss of a life. --- ### 3. **Implications of the Principle** Singer's principle has radical implications: - **Proximity is irrelevant:** Helping someone far away is as morally important as helping someone nearby. - **Numbers do not diminish responsibility:** Even if others fail to act, your obligation remains. Modern technology has created a "global village," making it easier to assist those far away. This removes any justification for ignoring distant suffering. --- ### 4. **The Paradox of Collective Action** Singer addresses a potential objection: - If everyone gave a small amount, the problem could be solved. Why should one person give more than their "fair share"? - Singer counters that since not everyone will give, individuals must contribute more to prevent suffering. Do not assume that your obligation is reduced because others fail to act. Singer argues that this reasoning leads to moral complacency. --- ## Practical Considerations ### 1. **Government vs. Individual Responsibility** - Some argue that famine relief should be the government's responsibility, not the individual's. - Singer counters that private contributions do not absolve governments but complement their efforts. Advocate for government action while continuing to contribute individually. Both approaches are necessary. --- ### 2. **Population Control** - Critics argue that famine relief is futile without addressing overpopulation. - Singer agrees that population control is essential but insists that this does not absolve us from helping those currently suffering. Supporting organizations that promote population control can be an effective way to address long-term famine prevention. --- ### 3. **How Much Should We Give?** Singer proposes two versions of his principle: - **Strong Version:** Give until you reach the point of marginal utility, where further giving would cause as much suffering to yourself as it would alleviate. - **Moderate Version:** Give until you sacrifice something morally significant. The strong version demands significant lifestyle changes, while the moderate version still requires substantial contributions. --- ## Objections and Responses ### 1. **Too Drastic a Revision** - Critics argue that Singer's conclusions are too radical and unrealistic. - Singer responds that moral standards can evolve and that societal norms influence individual behavior. In a society where giving half your income to famine relief is the norm, such behavior would not seem radical. --- ### 2. **Utilitarian Criticism** - Some forms of utilitarianism suggest working full-time to maximize happiness, which critics find impractical. - Singer clarifies that his argument applies only when preventable suffering exists. Singer's principle does not demand constant action but focuses on situations where suffering can be alleviated without significant sacrifice. --- ## Key Takeaways 1. **Moral Responsibility:** Affluent individuals have a moral obligation to prevent suffering caused by famine and poverty. 2. **Proximity and Numbers:** Distance and the actions of others do not diminish individual responsibility. 3. **Duty vs. Charity:** Giving to famine relief is a moral duty, not an optional act of charity. 4. **Lifestyle Changes:** Significant changes in consumption habits are required to meet moral obligations. 5. **Practical Action:** Support famine relief and population control efforts, both individually and politically. --- ## Self-Check Questions 1. Why does Singer argue that proximity is irrelevant in moral decision-making? 2. How does the drowning child analogy illustrate moral obligation? 3. What is the difference between the strong and moderate versions of Singer's principle? 4. How does Singer respond to the objection that famine relief should be the government's responsibility? 5. What are the implications of Singer's argument for affluent individuals? --- ## Practice Problem **Scenario:** You have $100 to spend. You can either buy a new pair of shoes or donate the money to a famine relief fund that will save a life. According to Singer's principle, what should you do? Why? Consider whether the shoes fulfill an essential need or if the money could prevent something morally significant. --- By challenging traditional moral distinctions and emphasizing global responsibility, Singer's essay compels readers to rethink their ethical priorities and take meaningful action to alleviate suffering.