Response to Singer Reading

I believe that Singer’s three premises lead to a reasonable conclusion.  I believe that if all the premises are true it is a sound argument.  The piece is quite convincing because most of it is very clear and anticipates counterarguments.  For example, Singer pokes apart the possible counterargument that overpopulation in Bengal will come as a result of suffering, an ad consequentiam argument by posing the alternative of population control.  The problem I have with Singer’s argument is the third premise. 

I agree with Singer’s first premise, and do not have a problem with the fact that he does not spend time justifying it.  Like the first premise, the second is easy to follow, but it is more difficult to defend, and requires evidence, which Singer provides.  However, Singer does not establish parameters to the “moral significance” other than anything that can prevent suffering as explained in the first premise.  I believe he should have done so in the third premise.  Singer provides the example of helping refugees in Bengal to center his argument, and provides situations in which people may not understand when morality is used.  I do not think these examples are enough of a clarification.  I found it unclear what exactly Singer’s end goal is for his individual readers.

He cites examples to establish the contexts in which people feel moral, and argues that morality should not be confines as Ursmon and SIdgwick argue.  I side more with Urmson and Sidgwick, who believe that moral codes must not be too strict to break.  I do not believe that should be an excuse for weak morals, however, it is difficult to determine what steps to take to work towards preventing suffering and death other than donating money.  When do we know if we have completely fulfilled our moral responsibility?  How many causes should we individually contribute to? How to we ensure we are aware situations in which there is death and lack of food shelter and medical care? Which place takes priority?  For this reason, the premise I find to be the weakest is Singer’s third.  Though he knocks down potential counterarguments, he still does not cover when exactly our contributions are adequate.  He argues that it is morally sound to donate, but does not establish the parameters in which we are successful at accomplishing that.  Though Singer disagrees with Urmson and Sidgwick, people do respond to clear parameters.   He addresses my concern by saying that people might find this to be too much of a “drastic change” (236).  I do not find it to be too drastic, but to rather unclear as to how I as an individual can employ his advice towards a more sound morality.  Is it enough to donate to the refugees in Bengal?