Nick Giovenco
14189914
2018SS PHIL 1100 Barker
07/27/2018
Selfish Society
I will defend Singer’s argument for a moral obligation to prevent something bad without
thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth. My view is that this argument provides
the ground work for a step in the right direction when it comes to relieving poverty. I have come
to this conclusion because, as Singer says, “it is not beyond the capacity of the richer nations to
give enough assistance to reduce any further suffering to very small proportions”. (Singer,
pg.870) This statement resonated with me as there are country’s out there with less opportunity
and we, as the developed nations, stand idly by providing much less support then we are
capable of.
The distance between these nations, which made it harder to act, was one of the
arguments brought up in the very beginning of Peter Singer’s, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”.
But with the advancements in travel and communications the concept of a global village is finally
real and at the disposal of those who choose to take advantage of it. Singer states, “It makes no
moral difference whether the person I help is a neighbor’s child ten yards from me or a Bengali
whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away”. (Singer, pg. 871) This quote
explains how just because the suffering is not right in front of you does not mean it is less, and
the outreach and impact the richer nations can easily provide is not being provided because
