Analysis

After reading Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” his conclusion and point to his argument is quite clear: “If it is our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything else morally significant, we ought, morally to do it” (235). He states his argument in such a way that people may think that finding flaws in his argument makes you a selfish person.  Singer encourages well-off people to use their wealth to help people who are in less fortunate situations. Personally, I agree with Singer’s whole crux of the argument, but I think more scrutiny of details needs to be taken into account.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that wealthy people will read Singer’s argument, agree with it, and follow through on his ideas to donate and help out. Poor people are obviously a group in our society that is suffering; therefore, the affluent people have to help these people. Singer is not very specific with taking into consideration factors like how that person got themselves into that situation in the first place. I am not saying that it is wrong to donate money, but when it comes to money it shouldn't be taken lightly because ultimately money is what makes our world function. The less fortunate are poor for a multiple of reasons. Some are not well off because of a dangerous disease…addiction. Addiction causes some to waste away their money on drugs or even just a shopping problem. Then you ask yourself, “How can it be morally right to donate money to people who will waste their money on such things that will essentially be detrimental to one’s health? To avoid this problem, I think the more affluent people in our society should donate only after you have personally conducted research and investigation to absolutely know where your money is going and if it will be put into good use. Furthermore, maybe just donating food and clothing would be more beneficial than just donating money.