Muhammad Rafeh

23090147

Philosophy of Education

DR. Faisal Bari

Professor Hasham Nasir

22 November 2019

Famine, Affluence and Morality

Peter singer in his article, ‘Famine, Affluence and Morality’, in Wiley Blackwell

Journal sets the scene in the famine of Bengal and draws onto the concept of morality in direct

relation to wealth. While he uses multiple means to convince the readers for his conclusion,

some general loop holes in the argument can be identified as the ideas lack general coherence

with practicality and philosophical contentions can be highlighted.

By choosing the setting to be the Bengal Famine, a widely known destruction across

the world, the writer has tried to persuade the reader’s emotions to continue reading the article.

For a critique, this start might be an intriguing one as they would like to see how such a start

in this essay unfolds into a morality debate. The writer has highlighted some brutal realities of

the world to influence one’s ethos. For example when he says; everyone’s contribution towards

saving such famine affected people is zilch, or how the society is constructed to praise a

charitable man but not condemn those who do not give charity, or how it is assumed to be the

government’s responsibility to provide aid to others and the individuals act unaccountable.

Singer in highlighting these points, presents various ideas through which such problems can be

countered. While some of these points are beautifully made, for example the idea to condemn

those who do not give charity and teach people from a very young age to do so, there are some
dimensions which he explores too deeply and his argument looks flawed, it looks like as if he

argues for the sake of arguing that morality has dwindled and such status quo practice fixing.

After arguing not giving charity need be condemned, he rejects the concept of current

charity system, claims that helping people does not have to be charity and aid should be given

to all equally. However, he ignores the institution of religion. For example, charity is

considered a moral act in its own self in both Hinduism (as Vedas suggests) and Islam.

Furthermore, why would Muslims give charity to others first when Islam suggest that Muslims

first give charity to their own brethren and then to others. If Muslims in today’s world no matter

how affluent they are; hesitant in providing aid to Rohingya crisis then how would moral

obligation by Singer suggested in this article expect them to provide for Mexican refugee

crises? Additionally, is it possible and practical to provide so much charity? Or if we abolish

charity, even then is excessive aid practical? One main assumption by Singer here stands that

affluent people need to give charity because they are sufficient to have a healthy life hence

morally obliged to let famine affected people live that life too. How does he assume that

people’s hard earned money need be given in charity because people can sustain in a certain

income? What about all the needs and wants of the people no matter how wealthy they are?

Money is something that no one considers enough, and Singer comments contrary to this

popular belief. The abolition and excess of charity based on wealth itself is a whole new

argument and isn’t assessed deeply by Singer. Additionally, as he makes the argument for

government’s responsibility versus private responsibility, he suggests that government is not

wholly responsible for such aid; it is the citizens that should also assume responsibility.

However, as a common argument, what about all the money that the citizens are already paying

to the government in terms of taxes etc. Do citizens need to be an extra dime every time a

famine occurs on this planet? Even if Singer and many others think it is moral to do so,

practically it seems impossible because most people do not wish to let their money go after
they work round the clock to earn it so that they can fulfil their own wants and needs. The

author also makes a bold assumption in suggesting existence of a global village where people

know anything and everything. Here, the author ignored media propaganda that purposefully

hides information and diverts it according to state interests.

In his essay, a good thing is that Singer recognizes the paradoxes within his suggestions

and arguments that may come forth, yet he claims that his argument is sound. He keeps insisting

that it has to be made compulsory for everyone to contribute a certain amount of money so that

famine affected people survive. If the concept of giving away is made compulsory as a

necessity for good morality, would it necessarily make the society an altruistic one? Does that

not hinder the prurient interests of the capitalist system? Are people in power, the capitalists,

ready to give up all for being morally good, when they have in past made people suffer horrors

at the hands of slavery and imperialism? Furthermore, Hume had highlighted a problem called

‘is-ought problem’, which is prevalent in this article. In what sense we ought to characterize

morality? Ought charity to make one morally good? Morality differs in itself, as Kant highlights

it being based on rationality. In arguing that ‘ought to give charity’ or ‘ought to give $5 each’,

is the author even making a logically and philosophically coherent argument? There needs to

be no derivation from is to ought, ‘giving charity is considered moral’ might be a sound claim

but ‘giving charity is ought to be moral’ as a claim is debatable.

Which brings me to the conclusion that even though the author tries to make a well

structured debate on how wealthy people have more responsibility in giving charity to those in

need and act morally, his argument consists of several flaws with logical incoherence, bold

assumptions and some aspects of the debate can be philosophically contended. The author tries

to do good by addressing morality, yet forgetting that morality cannot be caged into one

definition and therefore not standardised.

Word Count: 987