A Response to Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Famine purposes a great problem to humanity. Singer explains how famine in east Bengal took a swing at humanity.

(Singer, 1972 at p. 1)1 He argues that the reaction of people in relatively affluent countries is unjustified to situations similar to like that in Bengal. The moral eye needs to be tampered with in light of these issues. (Singer, 1972 at p. 1)2 The purpose of this paper is to analyze Peter Singer's argument.

According to Damer's five criteria of a good argument, it would be safe to claim that peter singer has made a good argument. (Damer at p. 0)3Though singer's argument is good and persuasive, his paper is not free from criticisms against certain points he raises while making his argument. I would like to point out two important issues with his paper. Firstly, there should not have been a criticism for not donating.

Secondly, discussion over misspent aid funds should have been included in his argument, since it is a serious problem.Despite these issues, idea presented in Singer's thesis should be supported. Singer begins his argument by criticizing the public for not giving large sums to relief funds, among other criticisms. Singer, 1972 at p. 1)4 Then again, he criticizes the public for spending their money on new clothes and cars instead of giving to the relief funds.

(Singer, 1972 at p. 2)5 I would like to point out that the income of a household in an affluent society is earned by the household. Anything earned by an individual is their property. A person can do whatever they wish with their property, because it belongs to them and they have a right over it. With that in mind, one must realize that donating to the Bengal relief fund is a choice of the household that wishes to give away their income.It is not necessary that a household that refuses to pay for the relief fund is doing something morally bad to the society and humanity.

The owner of the wealth has the right over where it can go, since he or she has earned it. It is not up to society or individuals to decide where the owner of the wealth can spend their income, since it does not belong to society. If the owner wishes to spend their earned income for something useless to humanity, such as new clothes and a car, that is their choice. It is a natural law of man to have rights over his property, especially in a capitalist economy.Thus, the distribution of that property, to whatever means it goes to, is determined by the owner of that property.

One cannot label them morally bad, unless he or she harms society. By not donating to the Bengal relief fund, a person or household cannot be labelled morally bad because the household or individual is not harming anyone, just not preventing something that is harmful. Preventing something harmful, and harming someone are two distinct entities. Preventing harm, in the Bengal case is financially.If one wishes not to provide his finances to the Bengal Famine relief fund, then it's a person's right over his property, however, if through the same finances, he was to buy nuclear weapons to desecrate others, then that would be morally wrong. Since a person's income is earned by that individual, that person has the right to do what he or she wishes with their income, because it is their property.

Therefore, one should not criticize any person for not donating out of his or her will. I believe, donations should not come through the means of making one feel guilty of their spending, instead it should come from their care and unforced will.Singer urges the public to donate to relief funds, to which I agree. (Singer, 1972 at p.

1)6 However, the only thing lacking in his paper I find is the issue of misspent relief funds. I raise this issue only because of the negative history these relief funds hold. If I start to list the recorded cases of misspent and misused aid money, one would be shocked, more shocked in looking at the cumulative amount of misspent aid money. If you want to see aid money misspent, you would not even have to look back more than a month.For example, on March 27, 2009, Washington Post reported misspent of $480,000 in aid. A U.

N. official in Afghanistan spent aid money on ... buying luxury furnishings for his house in Kabul, flying first-class and eating in expensive restaurants in cities around the world, on at least one occasion, he simply removed $65,000 from a safe, the report charged"(UPI at p.

1)7. Scary thing is there might also be many unreported cases of such evil. One could argue that although a lot of the money has been misspent and misused, there is still a large proportion that contributes to the aid. There is no doubt that a large proportion gets used in the right place.

However, it still ruins the credibility of these programs and it de-motivates new and existing donors. For example, if you are a consistent donor and had donated in the Afghanistan aid, mentioned above, most likely, you would have felt robbed and would be less likely to donate large sums, especially in that specific aid. Aid money being in the hands of the wrong people and being spent in the wrong places just ruins the will of the donator. My aim is not to convince someone to avoid donating but to highlight that singer should not hide such facts.In stating these facts, it would also be helpful to draw a remedy that which would encourage donations. Perhaps there should be a government funded agency that overlooks these relief funds to ensure money is being used in the right places and are in the hands of the right people.

Moreover, such a security would increase confidence of the donors and ease their worries of money being misspent. There might even have been a group of people that chose not to donate to the Bengal relief funds because of such insecurity. So unless if this type of security is enforced, we would continue to waste aid money and lose donors.Therefore, Singer should have mentioned this critical problem with aid funds because someone could argue they do not wish to donate because of misspent aid money.

Moreover, the paper should also have encouraged people to quickly apply a remedy. Despite the issues discussed above, I agree with Singer's thesis because he has refuted and provided evidence for what is morally good. Singer stated that there is no harm done in a good act such as donating to the relief fund of Bengal. (Singer, 1972 at p.

1)8 When there is no harm and only good, he argued that we should enjoin what is good and forbid evil. (Singer, 1972 at p. )The reason I also agree with this belief is that it holds a brighter future for humanity. Some may have religious obligations to enjoin good and forbid evil, but this is a general concept that would be found common between all groups of people.

It can benefit society and humanity at large. I find that the example he has given of a drowning child in a pond is extremely helpful in understanding his case. (Singer, 1972 at p. 1)10 With his example, he shows the importance of saving the child's life.

Even if it means getting our pants dirty, by all means, we should to do it since it is good and also because we can.Perhaps Singer could have made his argument stronger by mentioned that if we kept walking and let the child drown, we would have nightmares for not doing what is morally good. Singer also stated that the responsibility of providing for the needy is in the hands of everyone and not just public or private groups. (Singer, 1972 at p.

2)11 If we are all able to donate as much as we can, I am sure it would save a large number of lives, if not all. Therefore, we all have the power to provide, and since there is no harm, instead future benefits for all, we should provide.Although we may think that by giving away we are losing money, Singer indirectly mentioned that we are actually protecting future harm. (Singer, at p. 3)12 In conclusion, the point Singer has raised should not be taken lightly. We should act upon what he has asked from us.

Saving life of others, by means of donation, is not to his benefit, but to the benefit of humanity and we should all, collectively, participate in it since it is morally good. We must realize that just because we are fortunate of having all the meals we want, not everyone is.There are numerous unfortunate people who struggle just to find one piece of bread for a day. Moreover, we should also urge our governments to have security over our aid money. This would increase confidence in donors and get to the people that are in need of it.

Lastly, it would have been better for singer not to criticize people of where and how they spend their money, since they are not spending towards harming someone. Instead he should have encouraged everyone to spend towards a humanitarian cause while they afford their new clothes and cars.