Famine, Affluence and Morality
Singer, in his account on Famine, Affluence and Morality, gives compelling views and opinions regarding the situation in East Bengal. He starts by stating how saddened he is by the fact that people, when he was writing these accounts, were dying from lack of food, clothing and shelter. He is greatly saddened by the fact that people are suffering, yet there is minimal effort from other individuals as well as the government to assist. After a civil war, a cyclone and constant poverty, close to nine million people have been left homeless. This makes Singer greatly disturbed by the fact that not enough aid was sent to the refugees, as well as the very little assistance coming from the government. He is concerned that the people of Bengal have not taken to the streets, asking for aids. The locals have not written enough letters to their parliament representatives to demand for more government assistance. The government aid as well only lasts a few days. Though international aid was provided, a lot more is needed to cater for the refugees for at least a year. However, this places India at a dilemma of using its development fund to feed the refugees and risk more of its people starving in future.
The moral obligation of preventing something terrible from happening without compromising something else of an equal degree from happening is Singer’s second argument. He argues that it is a duty to help someone or prevent a terrible deed from happening if one is in the position to do so. He gives an example of saving a child from draining in a pool. Saving the child is more important than the soiled clothes one would get from saving the child. If the child ultimately dies, this would be a greater tragedy than just soiled clothes. He continues to state that if people acted on this principle, the world as we know it would be a better place. This principle makes no distinction on which people should be held by these moral obligations. It shows that regardless of your status in the society, your education or any form of entitlement one may have, it is vital to help the needy, when in a position to do so. He goes ahead and explains how situations like the one in Bengal, involves everyone, regardless of your geographical placing. Anyone would be able to donate food or money to the Bengal aid stations thanks to modern transport and technology. In this point, he argues that anyone is capable of doing something to help those in need, instead of waiting for someone else to take responsibility.
I agree with Singer’s argument on the moral obligation we all have to help prevent something wrong from happening if we can, as long as we do not cause another equally grave problem. In his illustration of how just a contribution of $5 from everybody would be more than enough to help the starving war refugees in India have a better day, gave me insight on the degree of ignorance we have come to embrace. In the world today, people are ignorant since they say it is not in their place to act when, in actual sense, it is instead their moral obligation to act. When natural calamities strike and there are casualties, everyone in the entire world is capable of doing something to help the situation. We cannot always rely on rich countries to give out aid, as this is a shared responsibility. This can be clearly seen from the Bengal situation where the proceeds given by the people were not enough, yet we have so much to offer. Relying on one government, or organization or a person to act proves that we are ignorant of the very foundation of human values and morals. In other words, it is not ‘human’; instead, it is inhumane.