Stratman 1

Contemporary Moral Issues

UTSA Fall 2023

Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”

Thesis: The way people in relatively affluent countries react to a situation of avoidable suffering
cannot be justified and the way of life in such affluent countries ought to be drastically changed
so that such affluent people do much more to help those in need. Indeed, each of us, insofar as we
are affluent, have a moral obligation to help those who are in need.

Singer’s Argument:
1. It is simply a fact that there is a huge amount of suffering in the world, especially in places
stricken by poverty, civil war, corrupt governments, etc.
2. When people suffering and die from lack of food, shelter, medical care, etc., which could
have been provided, these things are morally bad. (unargued for assumption).
3. If it is within someone’s power to (they can) prevent something bad from happening,
without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then that person
ought (they have a moral duty) to do that thing. (this is the can implies ought principle)
4. Presumably, each of us tend to spend money on things that we do not need (e.g., coffee,
new clothes, a new car, going out for lunch or dinner, going to the movies, etc.).
5. If someone tends to spend money on things that they do not need, then it is within that
person’s power to (they can) prevent something bad from happening, without thereby
sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.
6. Therefore, since each of us tend to spend money on things that we do not need, then it is
within our power to (we can) prevent something bad from happening, without thereby
sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.
7. Therefore, each of us, insofar as we are affluent, have a moral obligation to help those who
are in need.

Support for premise 3—the Can Implies Ought principle—this is also called the rule of rescue.

a) Ought Implies Can: If S has a moral obligation to do X, then S CAN do X.

b) Can Implies Ought: If S CAN do X, then S has a moral obligation to do X.

What do you think of this argument?

 Stratman 2

Argument by analogy.
Consider some allegedly obvious cases where one seems to have a moral obligation to help.
▪ The drowning child.

▪ Dora.

▪ Bob.

Now, Singer argues that, by analogy with the above cases, we also have the ability to save children
all over the world who are dying of starvation, lack of medical attention, etc., simply by pushing a
few buttons on our phones and sending some money to a reputable organization that would help
save the child’s life like UNICEF (United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund).
So, in order to show that we do not have a moral obligation to help starving children suffering
from famine relief, one would have to demonstrate that there is a morally relevant difference
between the cases.

Singer argues that there is no morally relevant difference, though there might be some non-moral
difference of various sorts.

Therefore, we have a moral obligation to help starving children suffering from famine and poverty.

What do you think of this argument?

Since this is an argument by analogy, there are important criteria that we need to consider when
we evaluate the argument:
a) The instances being compared.
b) The relevant similarities between the instances being compared.
c) The relevant dissimilarities between the instances being compared.
d) The diversity between the instances being compared.
▪ The instances being compared are the children.
▪ The relevant similarities are that these children are suffering and dying.
▪ Singer claims there are no morally relevant dissimilarities.
▪ But we might dispute this claim.