Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Peter Singer

Nonfiction | Essay / Speech | Adult | Published in 1972

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Themes

Reducing Human Suffering

The main theme of Singer’s essay is reducing human suffering. The essay was prompted by the 1971 Bangladesh crisis, but in a preface written in 2016, when ”Famine, Affluence, and Morality” was republished in an essay collection, Singer wrote that his argument is general enough to apply to any other form of human suffering. Specifically, he argues that people and governments in wealthy nations should donate money to reduce the suffering of people in less affluent countries.

In the essay, the goal of reducing human suffering is front and center from the start. The first assumption Singer adopts to build his argument is that suffering derived from things like starvation, lack of housing, and inadequate medical care is bad. He states this as a given, without evidence, sarcastically adding, “Those who disagree need read no further” (5)—a statement that makes readers wonder who would be callous enough to reject this premise. The axiom that suffering is bad and must be alleviated forms the basis for the rest of his argument, with the only variables being how much to give and under what conditions.

Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!

8,800+ In-Depth Study Guides
4,700+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
Downloadable PDFs

Singer offers two further details that extend the scope of the obligation to reduce suffering. The first is that proximity or distance has no bearing on one’s obligation to act. In the past, it perhaps made sense to focus on a local area, but technology has shrunk the globe so much that experts in the field “can direct our aid to a refugee in Bengal almost as effectively as we could get it to someone in our own block” (8-9). The second point is that how one acts should not change based on how many others may also be able to act. Those who argue that the presence of others lessens the obligation to act invite inaction and increase the likelihood that nothing will be done.

People’s Moral Framework

Singer argues that we need to change our current cultural ethos around giving. After establishing that people should act to reduce suffering as long as this doesn’t require sacrificing something morally significant, Singer claims that how we look at acts of charity needs to change. Instead of seeing the act of giving to the poor to prevent starvation or other forms of suffering as a voluntary and noble—act of “charity”—we should see it as a duty.

Singer notes that “given the extent of both affluence and famine in the world today,” this shift would “have radical implications” (16). This is because charity would stop being supererogatory, a term Singer defines as “an act which it would be good to do, but not wrong not to do” (15). Rather than praising those who give for their kindness, we would condemn those who don’t give. This change in thinking would lead to others: It would become wrong to spend our extra money on things like eating out, buying clothes we don’t need, or leisure travel, rather than to giving it others we know are suffering.

Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!

8,800+ In-Depth Study Guides
4,700+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
Downloadable PDFs

This seems strange to contemplate since our existing moral scheme presents such discretionary spending as one’s own business as long as it doesn’t harm others. Singer, however, argues that our perception of such an act simply relies on the ethical framework that we construct and accept. Such a shift is not unheard of: Historically, thinkers such as the 13th century theologian and philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas have called for a similar transformation. Moreover, as people adjust to the new expectations, it would soon constitute a norm.

The Effects of the Consumer Society

Singer sees the effects of consumer culture as mostly negative. Wherever we choose to draw the line between duty and charity, he believes it is necessary to weaken, if not destroy, overconsumption, “dependent as it is on people spending on trivia rather than giving to famine relief” (29). Furthermore, since consumer society has “a distorting effect on the goals and purposes of its members” (29), it is a major obstacle in getting people to regard giving to the poor and suffering as an obligation. This is one reason Singer uses the analogy of saving a drowning child to make the case for giving aid to refugees in Bangladesh. Such an obvious obligation to help an innocent being starkly points to the absurdity of spending money on unnecessary things rather than giving it to people in need.

However, Singer does see at least one positive aspect of capitalist consumption: It fuels gross national product (GNP). He concedes that in finding the right balance between duty and charity, donating a smaller share of a large GNP could result in a greater absolute value than donating a larger share of a small GNP. Thus, his wish to weaken consumer society is tempered by the recognition that weakening it too much would result in less foreign aid. After acknowledging this, he calls on experts to find the proper balance. In the meantime, since governments currently give so little in foreign aid (1% is considered adequate), the point is moot, and it doesn’t affect how much individuals should give.