Are We Morally Responsible to Help Those in Need?

Are We Morally Responsibly to Help Those in Need?

According to Singer, we have a moral obligation to give to those in need if we can, no matter where they are in the world. We must give as much as we can without putting ourselves in peril. This moral theory, known as Utilitarianism, is the idea that we should strive to bring about the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people. Singer strongly believes in this theory that we should give as much as we can. Singer is correct in many ways, but believes in Utilitarianism to an extreme I’m not comfortable fully accepting.

Throughout the world, millions of people are suffering on a daily basis due to poor living conditions, not enough food or even violence. “Constant poverty, a cyclone, a civil war have turned at least nine million people into destitute refugees.” (Page 495). The decisions and actions of human beings can prevent this kind of suffering, but no drastic measures have been made by any nation. With today’s publicity and media, neither individuals nor governments can claim to be unaware of the situations going on throughout the world. If this is such a big problem throughout the world, why haven’t the majority of those who can taken any extreme measure in solving this problem? Singer believes, as do I, that our moral implications should be altered as well as our lifestyles that have been influenced by today’s society. The problem I have with Singer though, is that he takes this to such an extreme that it may interfere with my own goals and ambitions.

Singer begins his argument by assuming that “suffering and death from lack of food, shelter and medical care are bad” (Page 496). While his point is fairly straightforward, some people may argue that death by starvation is not always in itself bad. Because it is nearly impossible to disprove these positions, Singer moves on and accepts this assumption. His next point is “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (Page 496). What he means is if we are able to help those suffering without putting ourselves in a similar situation, than it is our moral duty to help them. This principle requires us to only prevent what is bad, and not promote what is good, only when it does not force us to sacrifice something of equal importance. Singer uses an example of a child drowning in a shallow pond. He should pull the baby out of the water even though his pants would become muddy, because the death of a child would be far worse. Singer goes on to argue that it doesn’t matter who the child is. He could be someone he knows or a random child living across the world. Singer points out that the principle makes no difference if he is the only one around, or one among millions in the same position. I do agree with what Singer states here, and I hope everyone else agrees with this basic moral concept.

...