Rethinking Morality: Peter Singer's Radical View on Charity and Obligation

The Revolutionary Ideas of Peter Singer's 1972 Paper

In 1972, philosopher Peter Singer published a paper that would shake the foundations of ethical thinking. Titled Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer's work presents a compelling argument that the moral frameworks guiding most people's lives are not just inadequate but profoundly mistaken. This paper, persuasive in its reasoning, suggests that a moral life demands a radical transformation of our personal lives and societal structures.

The Core Argument

Singer's thesis pivots on the distinction between what is considered 'supererogatory' – actions that go above and beyond moral duty – and what is 'obligatory' – actions that moral duty requires. He uses simple, relatable examples to illustrate this difference, such as the act of buying coffee and donuts for colleagues, which is supererogatory, versus fulfilling a promise to do so, which would be obligatory.

The crux of Singer's argument lies in challenging the conventional view of charity as a supererogatory act. He argues that in a world where organizations like OXFAM and UNICEF can efficiently use donations to save lives in famine-stricken areas, giving to charity should not be seen as optional but as a moral obligation. According to Singer, if it is within our power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we are morally obligated to do so.

The Implications

The implications of Singer's argument are far-reaching. He suggests that spending money on luxuries while others die from lack of food or medicine is morally indefensible. This perspective challenges us to reconsider our daily choices, such as purchasing new clothes or a cup of coffee, as potential moral failings if that money could instead save lives.

Assessing the Argument

Singer's proposition is radical, and its acceptance would require a significant shift in societal values and personal priorities. Despite the potential for controversy, the logic of his argument is difficult to refute without engaging in serious ethical reflection. Singer addresses potential objections, such as the relevance of proximity to those in need and whether the presence of others who could also help absolves individual responsibility, concluding that these factors do not diminish personal moral obligations.

How Much Should We Give?

A question that naturally arises from Singer's argument is the extent of our obligation. How much of our resources must we divert to those in need to live a morally commendable life? Singer presents both a weaker and a stronger principle in his paper, suggesting that while we may not need to give to the point of personal destitution, our contributions should be substantial and meaningful.

Conclusion

Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, and Morality challenges us to rethink our moral obligations in the face of global suffering. By arguing that charity is not merely commendable but obligatory, Singer invites a radical reevaluation of how we live our lives and prioritize our resources. While the demands of his argument may seem daunting, the moral clarity he provides is a call to action that remains as relevant today as it was in 1972.

To explore Singer's revolutionary ideas further and engage with his compelling argument, read the full paper here.