Question

The notion “comparable moral significance” is very important to Singer’s argument. He leaves it “unexamined.”to begin with, what is it, and what role does it play in his argument? Further; what, in our lives in the year 2014, might we sacrifice, that would not really be of comparable moral significance to the suffering (from absolute poverty) we might prevent? Remember, as always, to be civil and respectful in your discussion, especially with those expressing views you may strongly disagree with.

Answer 1

One of the most important message from Peter Singer in his Rich and Poor document is that most of the people in the underdeveloped and developing countries live in absolute poverty. These people struggle hard to fulfil their biological needs such as food and shelter. One way or the other, all the developed nations are responsible for this plight of the underdeveloped countries because of the exploitation in terms of material and human resources. So, he suggests that people who can afford, have a moral responsibility to contribute to help people without worrying about the distance that separates them. This he terms it as assistance principle where he states that ‘if it is in our hands to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything morally significance, we should do it’. So, all the rich people in this world are morally bound to help the poor people all around world with whatever they can.