Singer On The Art Of Charity
Singer On The Art Of Charity
Introduction
Issues pertaining to charity and charitable activities have always attracted controversial statements and opinions. This is especially with regard to the moral obligation that human beings have to each other as to prevent calamities or, at least, alleviate their suffering. Peter Singer, in his article examines the moral obligations that human beings have to each other irrespective of the distances that separate them. He notes that a large number of developed nations have chosen to fund developmental programs rather than give aid to Bengal so as to alleviate the suffering and the starvation of Bengalese people. In this regard, he postulates the argument that the manner in which individuals in relatively affluent nations have reacted to situations of dire starvation cannot be justified, rather the moral conceptual scheme of such individuals must be completely overhauled alongside the way of life that is taken for granted in the society.
Singer bases his argument on a number of assumptions. He states that if individuals and nations have the capacity to prevent the occurrence of something bad without sacrificing something that has comparable moral importance, then they have a moral obligation to undertake that obligation. This is, essentially, Singer’s concept of marginal utility, which underlines the notion that the prevention of something that is bad is only required in instances where nothing of comparable importance would be sacrificed.
While it may be more likely that individuals will assist an individual who is in close proximity, this does not underline an increased obligation to assist the person close to us more than the person that is further away. On the same note, individuals are not less morally obliged to assist in situations where they can simply because other people in similar classes as them have not rendered a helping hand. Singer states that the fact that there may be any other people in similar circumstances who are yet to render a helping hand does not make the situation any different from a situation where an individual is the only one who has the capacity to prevent the occurrence of something bad (Singer, 1972). In this regard, conventional moral categories are upside down, especially with regard to distinction between charity and duty. Indeed, giving money is seen as an act of charity, with the society seeing nothing wrong with failure to give.
However, Singer’s concept of duty of care is entirely different from the situation in the real world. Indeed, it is quite difficult for individuals to make any contribution to charity in instances where other individuals in the same class are not making it (Cullity, 2004). This may essentially be regarded as the bystander effect, where it is more difficult for individuals to render a helping hand when they are in a group thanks to the herd or group mentality (Cullity, 2004).
One of the objections to Singer’s arguments revolves around utilitarianism where it is argued that all individuals ought to be doing all they can to enhance the balance of happiness over misery. On the same note, some individuals may feel that if they contribute to charity, they would inspire their governments not to make any contributions to the same. In addition, others may feel that rendering assistance to victims of starvation would not amount to a solution, rather it would simply postpone starvation unless there exists effective population control (Singer, 1972). However, Singer feels that while governments, especially in developed nations, should be increasing the amount of genuine, no-strings-attached aid than they currently are providing, and individuals should be lobbying for new standards for private and public contribution to charity, failure to make contributions would not push governments to do so (Singer, 1972). In fact, making the contributions would send a message to governments that their people are concerned about famine and would want to eliminate it. On the same note, while it is a well-known fact that the world cannot indefinitely support the present rate of population growth, this would not essentially absolve an individual from any obligation pertaining to doing all that one can to prevent famine (Singer, 1972). Indeed, there exists other organizations that are working specifically to control the population in which case an individual could support them instead of the more orthodox ways of alleviating famine.
While Singer may be putting forward relatively radical assertions, I would agree with them entirely. Indeed, human beings have a moral obligation to assist in the alleviation of the suffering of their fellow men. This is irrespective of the geopolitical locations of the victims of such calamities or rather, the distance that may be separating the victims from the individuals giving the assistance. Granted, individuals may feel guiltier in instances where they do not assist a person that is close to them as they can see his or her suffering. However, this does not negate the fact that individuals have an obligation to assist their fellow man even when they are far away, especially considering the incredible globalization that has taken place that allows for greater awareness of the suffering that may be happening thousands of miles away, as well as enhance the capacity of individuals to assist through organizations that would find their way into those places (Shafer-Landau, 2007). Granted, the long-term solution to these problems may revolve around population control. However, this is not a reason not to assist presently especially considering that there already are varied organizations that are already striving to bring population growth under control in these places (Shafer-Landau, 2007).
References
Singer, P (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 3. pp. 229-243
Cullity, G. (2004). The moral demands of affluence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2007). Ethical theory: An anthology. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
