There are things we have to do and other optional. In other words obligatory things vs supererogatory
Obligatory vs supererogatory
Imagine you’re have a meeting. You’re in the meeting room earlier than everyone. You felt thirsty, so you drink up from a bottle you have, but you think to yourself what if everyone else is thirsty. You have idea, it’ll be nice you would placed bottle at the each person place, you got time, meeting won’t start in 15min. You went back and got all the bottle from company kitchen and placed on there. You don’t have to do it, but it’s a nice thing to do. but if you were an assigned person to this sort of things done than it’s in your obligation to do it. Now that I hope you have clear idea of the two words let’s move on.
Is it obligatory to help in relief efforts?
Most of use would think donating money and help in famine or refugee instead of spending money on less moral significant thing such as buying new cars and new phone when the old one work perfectly fine. We don’t have to donate to help but it’s nice if we do, Right?. Well, singer says, no it is a duty to donate and help in those relief, it’s immoral to be otherwise.
Famine, Affluence and Morality
In Famine, Affluence and morality paper by Peter Singer in 1971 the statement was -
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of moral significance, then we ought, morally, to do it.
“Something bad” meaning hunger, death, disaster, murder, bad suffering and so on. “Morally insignificant things” are such as buying a luxury cars which we don’t really need to survive or morally make no difference. Or the abundance of jewelry we buy, phones, video games, nice headphones.
Save a drowning child
Imagine, you’re on your way to work, a very important event at work today, but you see a child drowning in lake on the way, Well?, despite risking being late and getting your suit messed up, most of us would no doubt help the child. A child drowning is a very bad thing and risk getting messed up our suit and being a little is not of moral significant. Beautifully supporting the philosophy.
Obligatory to donate
This mean it is obligatory to donate in famine relief organization to help people in whatever terrible place it is right now by sacrificing not buying new shiny shoes when our current shoes work perfectly, not buying next iPhones and cars. It’s immoral otherwise.
Objection by proximity
Wait donating to famine relief isn’t the same thing a drowning child in front of my eyes. Well, if you’re living medieval age that would be justifiable argument, but today age and days technologies connect the whole world and not being able to help due to distance is no longer an excuse. This does not invalidate singer point as well.
Objection by Peers
You’d think other people are donating the charities it wouldn’t be the end of the world for me to not donate and buy new clothes?. Well, how do you think if I say “There were other people nearby, so I didn’t save the drowning child” or “Or I was waiting for other people nearby to recuse the child so just passed by”. Singer says the responsibility falls to the individual and it’s not an moral excuse to whether if other people available to help. This does not invalidate singer point as well.
Conclusion
Singer’s argument is general in scope and not limited to the famine relief or any particular disaster at hands. It’s as controversial as it sound it’s as radical.
Then we’re all evils?
Are we all evil to spending most of our income on ourselves and luxury?
“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of moral significance, then we ought, morally, to do it.” - Peter Singer