Question

approximately 300 words, please answer the following question(s): Please summarize and briefly explain Singer's argument for morally obligated famine relief. According to Singer, why are the affluent nations of the world morally required to provide aid to the poorer nations of the world? What is the primary moral principle that Singer uses to justify his reasoning? Are there any worries/difficulties that Singer’s position seem to face? If so, what are they and how might Singer respond to those worries/difficulties?

Answer 1

Answer 1 -
It is fairly often in our power to stop one thing terribly unhealthy from happening while not sacrificing something virtuously vital. for instance, we have a tendency to may offer abundant, much more
of our financial gain to famine-relief than we have a tendency to do, thereby preventing several deaths by starvation, simply by not shopping for new garments and shoes once our previous ones are still absolutely functional, and shopping for high-ticket meals out after we may eat far more cheaply. We ought, morally, to relinquish up such luxuries and provides abundant, far more of our financial gain to famine-relief.
Singer claims there's no vital distinction between the pool Example and therefore the case of Famine Relief. He considers 2 attainable differences: The child drowning within the pool is close, whereas the individuals starving in Asian nation are terribly far away. (Also, serving to the kid can stop a death currently, whereas giving to famine relief can stop solely future deaths.

Answer 2 -

Maybe giving aid simply results in the within the long haul unhelpful dependence of individuals in developing nations on economic aid.
Again, this can be Associate in Nursing empirical thesis, and a more durable one to assess. It looks a lot of probably to be true
when issues are caused by a corrupt government, that “gets away with it” as a result of foreign aid helps mask the matter. however it’s abundant exhausting to form the case once issues are caused by drought or natural disaster. And more durable still once what the help will is, e.g., offer two-winged insects nets to babies WHO would otherwise die from protozoal infection. Finally, there could also be limits attack the number we must always offer, well higher than the amount at that we’re no comfortable than those we’re serving to, by the anti-growth affects that large giving would wear the economy/GNP of developed nations. a huge increase in giving would lead to abundant less client defrayment, and a way smaller economy (lost jobs, lost wealth) .

Answer 3 -
Singer next considers worries we would have concerning premise of his original argument: Is it true that giving most of our financial gain to famine relief can stop several deaths from starvation, and so have far better results than not giving?
One kind this worry has taken is that the objection that if we have a tendency to adopted an ethical code that required such a lot people, we have a tendency to’d be thus discouraged and weak that we’d do even less sensible than we do currently. The demandingness of the ethical code would lead to a general breakdown of compliance even with less stringent rules.