"Famine, Affluence, and Morality" is an essay written byPeter Singer in 1971 and published inPhilosophy & Public Affairs in 1972. It argues that affluent persons aremorally obligated to donate far more resources tohumanitarian causes than is considered normal inWestern cultures. The essay was inspired by thestarvation ofBangladesh Liberation Warrefugees, and uses their situation as an example, although Singer's argument is general in scope and not limited to the example of Bangladesh. The essay is anthologized widely as an example of Western ethical thinking.[1]
One of the core arguments of this essay is that, if one can use one's wealth to reduce suffering—for example, by aidingfamine-relief efforts—without any significant reduction in the well-being of oneself or others, it is immoral not to do so. Singer raises adrowning child analogy: in his essay: inaction is clearly immoral if a child is drowning in a shallow pond and someonecan save them but chooses not to. If saving the child would mean "getting my clothes muddy", this is not of "comparable moral importance", as the death of the child would "presumably be a very bad thing".(Singer 1972, p. 231). He argues further that placing greatergeographical distance between the person in need and the potential helper does not reduce the latter's moral obligations:[2]
It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or aBengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. ... The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. Previously, ... this may hardly have been feasible, but it is quite feasible now. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society.
The affluent, says Singer, are consistently guilty of failing to recognize this, having large amounts of surplus wealth that they do not use to aid humanitarian projects indeveloping nations.
Here is the thrust of Singer's argument:
PhilosopherGilbert Harman considered "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" to be "one of the most famous articles written inmoral philosophy", asHelga Kuhse summarized Harman's view.[5] In 1981, philosopherJames Rachels said of the article: "one felt intellectual interest in the argument, but also guilt for not having contributed more money to relieve starvation".[6] Singer's article inspired the writing ofPeter Unger's 1996 bookLiving High and Letting Die.[5]
PhilosopherWilliam MacAskill was influenced by the essay, which he encountered in an undergraduate seminar; MacAskill later went on to be a founder of theeffective altruism movement.[7] In 2015,The New Republic noted the influence of Singer's essay on effective altruism.[8] The "drowning child" analogy informs the title of the 2015 bookStrangers Drowning byLarissa MacFarquhar,[9] which documents the lives of various extreme altruists, some of whom were influenced by Singer's essay.[10]
A common criticism of Singer's essay is thedemandingness objection. For example, the "supposed obligation" of Singer's essay has been criticised byJohn Arthur in 1982,[11] byJohn Kekes in 2002,[12] and byKwame Anthony Appiah in 2006,[13] and Singer's claim of a straight path from commonsense morality to great giving has also been disputed.[14]
In a review for theFinancial Times upon the release of the 2016 book version of Singer's essay,Daniel Ben-Ami argued that the key to eradicating poverty lies not only in charitable efforts but also in fostering a sense of agency among the impoverished. He gave the example of how China lifted millions out of poverty by transforming its economy, rather than being dependent on western aid and sympathy. He argued that people who wish to aid famine relief or poverty alleviation should have the freedom to do so. However, it is important to avoid perceiving the impoverished as mere passive beneficiaries of Western charity. Such a perspective should be resisted, as it overlooks their agency and potential to contribute actively to their own betterment.[15]
The problem with the argument isn't that it claims we have incredible obligations to foreigners; the problem is that it claims we have incredible obligations.