Peter Singer

Peter Singer’s famine relief argument is that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical attention are very bad things, which we could all agree on. He then goes on to say “if we can prevent very bad things from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable moral value, then we are morally required to do so”. This means that if we have the chance of preventing something very bad from happing, we ought to do everything in our power to keep it from occurring at which doesn’t cost us any significant damage. However if we know about suffering or other very bad things and don’t take any steps in helping, we then are morally responsible for the outcome of the ones suffering. Now Singer says there is no moral difference in the two cases of a man letting a child drown because he didn’t want to ruin his suit, and someone choosing to buy unnecessary luxury items instead of giving to reliable relief agency. Singer believes that it’s psychological effect that makes it appear that the man was more obligated to fulfill his moral duty than someone buying luxury items, rather than a moral difference. I agree with Singer that it’s merely a psychological effect rather than a moral difference because in both cases no attempt to prevent death occurred so there is no moral difference. I believe that our moral duty is to attempt to prevent death and suffering, as long as we make an effort we can’t be held morally responsible. I will be defending this argument by giving three premises that leads to my conclusion stated above. I’ll be showing examples on why my premises ultimately justify why my argument is valid. I will include why someone might have an objection to one of my claims, and explain why they might fail to see what I am arguing and or explain why my premises hold up.

First I’ll explain the difference between what is morally right compared to a psychological situation. Than is my argument: 1. Death is still death, and death doesn't care how death has happened. 2. We should attempt to prevent death despite the distance. 3. In both cases of the child drowning because the man didn’t want to ruin his suit, and someone buying luxury items instead of donating to charity: death could have been prevented. 4. Since no attempt to prevent death occurred in both cases, there is no moral difference. My premises look well organized and seem to correlate with each other. Then I will examine what types of arguments I might face and explain what they are failing to see or counter argument them. I would also like to note when I say a “preventable death”, I mean that there is always something we could do to help avoid a life form from dying and not a death where we have absolutely no control of, such as unpredictable unfortunate event.

One might argue that there is a moral difference between the two cases, however their judgment might be hazed by the psychological factor that has partaken. The difference between a morally right and a psychological factor is morally right is doing everything you can to prevent death and psychological factor is where you feel inclined to act a certain way based on the situation that has presented itself. For example, when an old lady is having a stroke and you’re the only one around, you might fill adrenaline kick in immediately try to help, either by calming her down or dialing 911. However if you are in the same situation expect there’s a bunch of people around, you might not fill inclined to act because you believe that someone else probably better suited for those particular situation will step in and help, this is know as the bystander effect. As you could see there are many psychological factors that could cloud your judgment, but in the end the morally right thing to do in both cases was to step in and act immediately instead of being a bystander in one.

I find my first premise “death is still death, and death doesn’t care how death has happened” to be completely logically and assume that everyone would agree on this. What I mean by this is that it doesn’t matter if death happened in front of you or from a far distance. With that being said I won’t be explaining it that much and jump into my second premise. If you do need help understanding it you could think of death sort as the grim reaper. The grim reaper’s job is to collect the dead body’s soul and send to it destination. He does not care to examine how the person died to see if it was fair or not; instead he just shows up does his job so he could proceed on with his day.

My second premise states “ We should attempt to prevent death despite the distance” is completely reasonable because if someone could live based on our actions, then we should ultimately do everything we can to help. What I mean by this is that if we at least make an attempt to prevent death we can’t be held morally responsible opposed to someone who makes no attempt, and then they could be seen as morally responsible. It’s obvious when faced to face with preventing death you’re more likely to help, but when preventing death from a distance we should not become neglectful. When death is occurring far away from us, it’s a psychological factor that may make us feel helpless, but that shouldn’t hinder us from attempting to help in any way. For example when the earthquake hit Haiti and hundreds were dying; people still helped by donating to the cause. Just because it didn’t happen in the U.S didn’t keep some Americans from helping, many still helped by their services, fund raising, spreading awareness, exc. For those who attempted to help, can’t be held morally responsible for the deaths that occurred during and after the disaster. But for those who didn’t make any attempt didn’t feel the need to help, can be morally responsible because if they did attempt to help, more lives could’ve possibly been saved.

...